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

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