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

Re: Test respository; work remaining.

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:21:51 +0100
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <31803.1019042511@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Jan Grant said:
> This is a fairly long message, and a call for volunteers. Topics covered:
> outstanding tests that need approving; entailment tests; manifest files.
> 
> 
> -- Outstanding tests that need approving.
> 
> Basically, I could do with some spare pairs of eyes to check that
> I've not missed anything - I've been back over the minutes a couple of
> times, and failed to find resolutions that approve the following files;
> some of these have no issue attached to them.
> 
> If anyone _does_ find any of these, please let me know directly.
> Otherwise, they need reviewing and approving or dropping. There may well
> be some in here that were approved at the recent F2F that I've missed.
> 
> entailment/*		- Jos to describe using manifest format (see
> 			below)
> 
> rdfms-abouteach/error001.rdf
> rdfms-abouteach/error002.rdf

From 2002-04-05 telecon
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0112.html

my action 2002-04-05#8 - add rdfms-abouteach to the names-test to make it illegal

which somehow didn't make it to the minutes but is in the IRC log at
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-04-05#T15-21-09

announced in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0061.html

closed in 2002-04-11 telcon
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0166.html



> rdfms-rdf-names-use/error001.rdf
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/error002.rdf
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/error003.rdf
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/test001.nt
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/test001.rdf
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/test002.nt
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/test002.rdf
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/test003.nt
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/test003.rdf
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/warn001.nt
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/warn001.rdf
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/warn002.nt
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/warn002.rdf
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/warn003.nt
> rdfms-rdf-names-use/warn003.rdf

From my action 2002-04-05#7 after approving the list of names in the
rdf namespace in the syntax WD, needed them recorded in test cases.
See the http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-rdf-names-use
and the resolution which defines them.

announced in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0043.html

closed in 2002-04-11 telcon
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0166.html
subject to me expanding them to 1 test per file.

The perl script is written, I just need to run it to generate the 101
tests.  Yes; there really will be 101 - testing all the names as node
elements, property elements and property attributes.


> rdfms-xmllang/test001.nt
> rdfms-xmllang/test001.rdf
> rdfms-xmllang/test002.nt
> rdfms-xmllang/test002.rdf
> rdfms-xmllang/test003.nt
> rdfms-xmllang/test003.rdf
> rdfms-xmllang/test004.nt
> rdfms-xmllang/test004.rdf
> rdfms-xmllang/test005.nt
> rdfms-xmllang/test005.rdf
> rdfms-xmllang/test006.nt
> rdfms-xmllang/test006.rdf

From my action 2002-04-05#6 after decisions in F2F

announced in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0060.html

closed in 2002-04-11 telcon
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0166.html


> xmlbase/error001.rdf

Aargh!  This test case will not die.  I want it to and we discussed
it for weeks.  Several WG members cannot agree on the right answer or
even if there is a well defined one.  Remains NOT approved.


> rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure/test001.rdf
> rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure/test002.rdf
> rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure/test003.rdf
> rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure/test004.rdf
> rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure/test005.rdf

There are no test answers to these.  I proposed adding them and
hearing no objections last week, will do so.

> rdfms-parseType/error001.rdf
> rdfms-parseType/error002.rdf
> rdfms-parseType/error003.rdf

Actually these do have non-error answers now; they are warnings and
generate ntriples.  I'll have a go at writing these too.

<snip/>

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 07:21:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:30 EDT