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

Re: Test cases - current status ?

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:12:21 +0100
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20602.1001074341@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> I've been updating ARP trying to get it to pass the test cases in the
> zip file and have hit a number of problems.
> 
> Earlier in:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0062.html
> 
> and the related thread I queried
> 
> rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0007.rdf
> rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0008.rdf
> 
> 
> 1: rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0007.rdf
> 
> I suggested that the triple
> 
> <http://example.org/resource/> <http://example.org/property> "bar" .
> 
> was missing from rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0007.nt
> 
> I got no response on that one.

Um, I replied and agreed with you in

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0063.html

I propose we fix this by adding the triple.


> 2: rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0008.rdf
> 
> There was some discussion that didn't terminate on this one.
> 
> Dave in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0063.html
> wrote:
> > test 8 contains an rdf:aboutEachPrefix and is thus now not in the
> > RDF/XML language.  The file should be renamed as an error case or
> > removed entirely (it does not test anything else that is not covered
> > by other cases).
> 
> which I am supportive of.

Lets fix this too by removing test0008.rdf

> A further problem is that a couple of files still have xml:base in them
> as highlighted in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0242.html

I also support the removal of the xml:base attributes from
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-empty-property-elements/test011.rdf
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-empty-property-elements/test012.rdf

Do we need this confirmed by the WG or can we just get these fixed as errors?

Dave
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 08:15:35 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:48 EDT