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

Re: rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema - Action point from 2001-06-15

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:43:07 -0500
Message-ID: <3B37A25B.41BD9CF9@w3.org>
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jan Grant wrote:
> 
> (Don't have an id for this yet)
> 
> Re: Brian's test cases at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/

I haven't looked at all of them in detail, but I see
several that look broken to me. Is there some
explanation for the design that results in these
results? I don't see it at a glance.

> 
> Test 1: fine (although a note that ntriples definition needs expanding
> to include "\n" and "\r" in WS)

please, no. keep each triple on one line.

> Test 2: yes.

yes.

> Test 3: yes, although this is simpler than test 2 (and subsumed there?).
> Suggest you change foo:Bar in test 2 to a normal bag.

hmm... having rdf:li turn into rdf:_nn outside
of rdf:Bag/Alt/Seq looks like a design change, to me.

It's interesting, but can we reasonable expect implementors
to have gotten that from the original spec?

> Test 4: yes (with a lamentation about the last alternative of production
> 6.12 again)
> 
> Test 5: ye-e-es*. I'm not going to quibble about this because it's truly
> a corner case.

This looks broken to me.

> 
> Test 6: yes. (the last case is horrific though :-) )
> 
> Test 7: yes.
> 
> Test 8: yes.
> 
> Error case 1: yep.

Really? "rdf:li is not allowed as as an attribute"
Why not?


> All looks fine to me (with provisos noted above).
> 
> jan
> 
> PS. "Overview.html" needs turning on for the whole world to see
> 

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 16:43:19 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:16 EDT