W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Test cases for http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-empty-property-elements

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:13:07 +0100
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
cc: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <11681.991753987@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Jan Grant said:
> Bundle of test cases here.

This is responding to the mail in
and attached test cases/results.

also refering to Jan's analysis of part of RDF M&S in

> test1: empty element with an rdf:resource attribute


> test2: empty element


> test3: empty element, "Literal" parseType

  correct and must be equiv. to test2.rdf/test2.n3 which it is.

> test4: empty element, "Resource" parseType.


> test5: empty element, rdf:ID attribute (produces reification)

  correct - because of http://ioctl.org/rdf/ms/rdfms#214
  NOT http://ioctl.org/rdf/ms/rdfms#229 which is the issue I'm
  dealing - I'll discuss that in another thread.

> test6: empty element, rdf:ID attribute and parseType "Resource".


> tests 7-12 mirror 1-6, but use explicit closing tags, ie:
>	<tag></tag>
> instead of
>	<tag/>
> the expected outputs are identical.


> Finally, the two error cases are empty elements with
> parseType="Resource" and an rdf:resource attribute. These should not be
> accepted as legal RDF.

Actually they are rdf:parseType="Literal" but it doesn't matter since
using rdf:parseType with rdf:resource on a propertyElt is already
not in the grammar in any part of 6.12.

I don't think you are proposing any grammar or meaning changes so
don't need failing tests for things that formally were allowed

Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 11:13:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:49 UTC