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

Re: Test Case Results

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:34:53 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEBICCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I am checking ARP's results against the tests.
So far, on the four Aaron highlighted:

rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test006.rdf
rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0002.rdf
rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0007.rdf
rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0008.rdf

my view is as follows.


> rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test006.rdf
=============================================

ARP 1.0.3 is incorrect, test looks OK to me. Will give further feedback once
I've fixed ARP.

> rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0002.rdf
======================================

Test has typo, last two lines of test0002.nt have subject:
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test02.rdf#bag>
not the correct
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0002.rdf#ba
g>

> rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0007.rdf
======================================

Test file  rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0007.nt missing triple:
<http://example.org/resource/> <http://example.org/property> "bar" .


> rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0008.rdf
======================================

This is interesting.
The URL is
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0008
.rdf

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0052.html
Satoshi Nakamura wrote:
> 4. rdf-ns for 'any' namespace uri.
>
> Is that legal that rdf-ns is used for propertyElt or typedNode?
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <x:foo xmlns:x="http://example.com/">
>   <rdf:foo xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"/>
> </x:foo>
>
> Does this RDF/XML generate no triples or generate triples below ?
>
> <_:genid1> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>
> <http://example.com/foo> .
> <_:genid1> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#foo> <_:genid2> .
>
> How about using rdf:Description instead of rdf:foo?

The test has an rdf:aboutEachPrefix, which for ARP is similar to Satoshi's
rdf:foo.
ARP behaves in two ways, both different from Dave's test. In default mode,
it generates triples like above; in strict mode it implements
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#196
and skips the entire element. (I take the URI in that paragraph to be a
typo!). In both cases it generates a message.

I do not believe we have discussed in any depth correct behaviour when
meeting unrecognised rdf attributes, and I have not seen any discussion
complaining about Para 196 and so suggest that we retain it. (well not the
words - just the meaning!).

Thus I would like to see the test case modified to generate only one triple:

<http://example.org/resource/> <http://example.org/property2> "blah" .

I am open to a rewriting of para 196 with different semantics, but do not
see the need.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 08:36:01 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:39 EDT