Re: Test Cases for Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

Hi Dave,

Dave Beckett wrote:
[...]
> 
> No, since we removed all the sections saying MUST NOT ... which would
> be about illegal examples.  Hence there is no conformance requirement
> than can be or need be tested.

The way I was looking at it, was that removing the 'MUST NOT' was removing
constraints on the behaviour of an RDF processor.  That doesn't prevent us
having examples that are not legal RDF.

I personally feel it would be useful to do so.  I have attached a couple
to this message for you to consider.  [Hope I get the cloaking right].

Brian

Illegal 1:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:eg="http://example.org/">
 <!--
  Test case for
  Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

  List of RDF attributes that are required to have an rdf: prefix
    about aboutEach aboutEachPrefix
    ID bagID resource parseType
 -->

  <!-- Test rdf:about - illegal -->

  <rdf:Description about="http://example.org/resource1/">
    <eg:property>bar</eg:property>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Illegal 2:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:eg="http://example.org/">
 <!--
  Test case for
  Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

  List of RDF attributes that are required to have an rdf: prefix
    about aboutEach aboutEachPrefix
    ID bagID resource parseType
 -->

  <!-- Test rdf:about - illegal -->

  <eg:Class about="http://example.org/resource1/">
    <eg:property>bar</eg:property>
  </eg:Class>
</rdf:RDF>