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

Re: Test Cases for rdfms-abouteach

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:24:34 +0100 (BST)
To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
cc: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dave Beckett <dave.beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0204121420170.17335-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Jos De_Roo wrote:

>
> >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" .

It's a toss-up here; the files certainly contain bits of syntax which
are no longer valid, so we've got two choices:

1. RDF documents containing abouteach and abouteachprefix are in error,
and are illegal. (This is what Dave's examples do).

2. Constructions containing abouteach or AEP are rendered impotent, but
the files are otherwise parsed as-is, and a warning omitted. In this
case, those tests should be renamed, Jos' triples confirmed as the
results of them, and we flag the tests as raising a warning in each
case.

The "be liberal in what you accept" would lead to answer 2; however, the
syntax document now describes an RDF without the appropriate
productions, so perhaps answer 1 is correct (and maybe the grammar needs
error productions for these?)

jan

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
It's a sad fact that the word "semantics" seems to have lost all meaning.
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 09:25:12 EDT

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