W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2014

Re: RDF 1.1 Test Cases

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:28:41 +0100
Message-ID: <5303D089.6040501@vu.nl>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>


On 18-02-14 22:06, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> The following are issues found in checking links and pub rules for
> RDF11-TESTCASES [1]
>
> * Previous version link not found - A previous version is not
> required for WG Notes * Document identifier information order -
> Previous version not required

I guess you've seen the discussion with Robin Berjon. I suggest we
manually remove it, when we're done with the doc.

> * XML namespaces - http://www.w3.org/ns/rdftest# not found. Perhaps
> we should create such a namespace document; it's used from tests and
> implementation reports too. The others will be created when the note
> is published.

It would be good to create it.

>
> Link checker:
>
> All references to EARL reports, which I suppose Sandro needs to put
> in place:
>
> * http://www.w3.org/2013/rdf-mt-reports/index.html *
> http://www.w3.org/2013/N-QuadsReports/index.html *
> http://www.w3.org/2013/N-TriplesReports/index.html *
> http://www.w3.org/2013/TrigReports/index.html *
> http://www.w3.org/2013/RDFXMLTests/
>
> CSAIL - http://www.csail.mit.edu/ timeout seems to load okay by hand

I get a time-out as well. I assume this will be temporary. I'll put this 
on my checklist.

>
> Other than the rdftest namespace document and putting the
> implementation reports in place, I think we're good to go in
> publishing the note.

Great,
Guus

>
> Gregg Kellogg gregg@greggkellogg.net
>
> [1]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/drafts/rdf11-testcases/Overview.html
>
>  On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12-02-14 22:12, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> The document is updated, and I saved a draft to
>>> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/drafts/rdf11-testcases/Overview.html>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
The PubRules checker finds issues, but it seems reasonable to me:
>>>
>>> * Markup saved as HTML5, which I believe is okay, but this
>>> generates an error. * Want's style sheet be be W3C-WD, but it's
>>> W3C-NOTE. * Want's status to have W3C Working Draft, but has W3C
>>> Note. * No Previous Version link. * ...
>>>
>>> There are more. I'm not sure that notes need to pass pubrules;
>>> let me know if there's something that needs to be done for this
>>> to pass cleanly.
>>
>> Notes do need to pass pubrules. I edited the ReSpec attributes a
>> bit and removed the "Prtevious version" link manually from the
>> static version [1], and now it passes pubrules (well, there is a
>> HTML error).
>>
>> The inclusion of a "Previous version" looks like a ReSpec bug. I'll
>> let them know.
>>
>> Guus
>>
>> [1]
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/REC-drafts/NOTE-rdf11-testcases-20140225/Overview.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Gregg Kellogg
>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>
>>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 21:29:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:19 UTC