W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Test Cases for rdfms-abouteach

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:11:18 +0200
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Dave Beckett <dave.beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF7F8C6496.709258FF-ONC1256B99.004655F2@agfa.be>

>At 00:04 06/04/2002 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
>
>>I've created 2 test cases for this issue
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-abouteach
>>
>>below
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-abouteach/
>>
>>They test failure for
>>
>>   error001.rdf  rdf:aboutEach
>>   error002.rdf  rdf:aboutEachPrefix
>
>These look good to me Dave.  The only nit I have is the use of the dc as
it
>makes the test a little more complex and doesn't seem necessary.
>
>Please can someone else look these over and we will aim to approve this
week.

well, I was looking for (but didn't find) the .nt files
one could of course argue here, but there are certainly triples
in those files, and I think we should say which ones
no? Jan?

I think for error001.nt there are 2 triples


<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-abouteach/error001.rdf#node>
    <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>
    <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag> .

<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-abouteach/error001.rdf#node>
    <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1>
    <http://example.org/node2> .

(remark the .rdf which is OK, but maybe avoid extensions)

and for error002.nt only 1 triple

  <http://example.org/node> <http://example.org/property> "foo" .

--
Jos
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 09:13:19 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:27 EDT