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: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:57:03 +0100
Message-ID: <3B1E6EEF.80E70E38@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Thanks Dave.  So over to you now Jos and maybe we can put this one to bed
before Friday :)

Brian


Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> >>>Jan Grant said:
> > Bundle of test cases here.
> 
> This is responding to the mail in
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0000.html
> and attached test cases/results.
> 
> also refering to Jan's analysis of part of RDF M&S in
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0081.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0082.html
> 
> > test1: empty element with an rdf:resource attribute
> 
>   correct
> 
> > test2: empty element
> 
>   correct
> 
> > test3: empty element, "Literal" parseType
> 
>   correct and must be equiv. to test2.rdf/test2.n3 which it is.
> 
> > test4: empty element, "Resource" parseType.
> 
>   correct
> 
> > 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".
> 
>   correct
> 
> > tests 7-12 mirror 1-6, but use explicit closing tags, ie:
> >       <tag></tag>
> > instead of
> >       <tag/>
> >
> > the expected outputs are identical.
> 
>   correct
> 
> > 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
> 
> Dave
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 13:58:05 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:02 EDT