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

Re: Minutes: JUN-01-2001 WG Teleconference

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:39:21 +0100
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: barstow@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF95D11E28.EF3D1829-ON41256A63.0052BF59@bayer-ag.com>

Brian wrote:
> jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
> [...]
> error1 I think there should be a test result with 0 triples
>        Maybe an error document should produce 0 triples
>        but there could be an issue here (my first issue?)
>        so I don't (yet) agree with the test result (because
>        there is none)
> Jos, could you please be a bit more explicit about what the problem is here.
> Do you have a test case in mind.  Why must there be a test result with 0
> triples?

Well I was actually meaning that we *could*
have an error1.n3 file in the testcase suite
and that that file *could* contain no triples.
The broader issue here is when you have a
"nesting" (to use Pat's new term) supposed
to contain triples and there is a
'syntactic problem' then WHAT is going to be
in e.g. an engine's memory?
Craching is definitely out of question and
exception reporting/logging is obvious, but
what is the exception handling supposed to be.
I hope to have made clear that 'no container'
is not the same as an 'empty container'.
is a testcase to start with.
(and sorry to have been so implicit (again))

> I'm inclined to suggest that we not let this stop us closing issues,
> though we need to note that we may need to revise the result files depending
> on the outcome of the #rdfms-reification-required issue.  In the meantime,
> I'll see what can be done to move this one forward.

I have no problem to live with that.

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 11:03:26 UTC

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