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

Re: Test cases: format of input and output (uri/node/resource/entity too)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:38:36 -0500
Message-ID: <3B1416DC.ECC9EDAC@w3.org>
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jan Grant wrote:
[...]
> If everyone is happy (ie, has no objections on technical merits) then
> I'd rather we just go ahead and use this.

Er... I think the non-technical issues actually dominate, in this
case. This is primarily a practical engineering decision.

I agree that technically, i.e. in theory, we could use
lots of things. But I don't agree to your proposal because
it's not backed by running code.

> I don't care if it'd be neater
> to use {{% %}} brackets around things - we can debate this endlessly. If
> someone out there has a preferred format that they've got a zillion test
> cases in, speak now or forever hold your peace*.

I have a preferred format that I have a zillion test cases in:
RDF/notation3.

  http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2000/10/swap/test/

I'm happy to discuss alternatives that are backed by running
code.

> jan
> 
> * and use perl.

I pefer python. I'm also happy with the XSLT-based proposals
I've seen. I'm willing
to look at a proposal written in perl; I'll hold my nose ;-)

On behalf of W3C (esp. the I18N WG), I'm somewhat obliged
to prefer an XML-based format, unless there are good reasons
to use something else.

Meanwhile, I do think there are good reasons: (a) because
XML is so hard to read that it unduely increases the
cost of debugging the tests and (b) because using XML might
hide some of the RDF issues that are close to XML.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 17:38:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:53 EDT