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

Re: RDF/XML Tests and new XMLLiteral tests

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:22:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPqY83xpWuOfhndPZsdzA1T+d7+X_9eT2wXtvb2Q80uGMg+Y_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
Cc: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Also in terms of value equality, DOM 4 isEqualNode and fn:deep-equal
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions-30/#func-deep-equal SHOULD be
equivalent (I as a user or implementer would be very surprised if they were
not except in pathological cases) but I have no idea if anyone has in fact
tested that they are.

--Gavin


On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>wrote:

> test008
>
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-xml/tests/xmlliteral/test008.rdf
>
> Is not well formed XML. ex is never defined. I am therefor worried about
> anything that is currently claiming to pass (or even run) these tests.
> Also, equivalence for testing would require comparing by value and not by
> lexical value which requires
> http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/#dom-node-isequalnode it seems likely this is
> going to be very hard to test. Some clear guidance from implementers on
> what they are planning to do would be helpful. For example how is MarkLogic
> dealing with XML and HTML literals? Given they already have an XPath 3
> implementation.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote:
>
>> On Dec 24, 2013, at 12:11 AM, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 24, 2013 12:50 AM, "Gregg Kellogg" <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I moved over the 2004 RDF/XML tests [1] using the new manifest
>> vocabulary, and added some extra XMLLiteral tests. The results are based on
>> my implementation, and could be off compared to the new language for
>> generating XMLLiterals, so I'd appreciate a second look.
>>
>> When we moved to the DOM serialize method, I looked hard at the
>> definition to see how it differed from c14n. The definition for serialize
>> relies on XQuery and XSLT semantics. Is there a mortal-facing definition or
>> example algorithm which you used to see what those literals should look
>> like?
>>
>> No, I presumed that the results must effectively be compatible with 2004
>> spec using c14n. I know of no implementations available to me of the new
>> XQuery and XSLT. Even if the results are off, these should be good test
>> cases. I'm happy to tweet the results to suit the actual results,
>>
>> IMO, and solution must preserve namespaces and language and not mess up
>> included definitions. I presume that the definitions don't need to be
>> minimal (I.e., only limited to those actually used in the fragment). This
>> leaves expansion of self-closing elements, which is entirely speculative.
>>
>> I'll look through the relevant specs further myself; perhaps they have
>> their own test suite?
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>> > Of course, there's always room for more tests.
>>
>> >
>> > Note that the tests reference a home directory of <
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/RDFXMLTests/>, which must be set up. and a Wiki
>> page <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDFXML_Test_Suite> which has
>> not yet been created.
>> >
>> > Gregg Kellogg
>> > gregg@greggkellogg.net
>> >
>> > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-xml/tests
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2014 21:23:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:18 UTC