- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:15:00 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>>Jeremy Carroll said: > > Sorry Dave, I am having difficulty reconciling what you say here, with your > message to Jan on the comments list. > > I had given him a zip of the current W3C CVS ... But when? That isn't much use without a date. Jan [Grant] makes snapshots as zips available and puts them in the CVS for the WDs. > , and I believe he had picked > up the change you made (on Friday?) to make the object a literal not a > blank node. and the change was wrong, as I said in the subject of this message. > My understanding of the approved test is that the object is a blank node, > and that there are no literals in this test case. and the fix restores that. If you read the diff in the messsage I sent you will see it replaces the empty literal object with a blank node. > If this differs from yours we need to discuss it. No. > In particular I disagree with: > [[ > > Revision : 1.2 > Date : 2002/12/18 11:31:28 > Author : 'jgrant' > State : 'Exp' > Lines : +2 -2 > Description : > Raptor fix: this now gives an empty literal, not a bnode. > ]] > > Revision 1.1 was correct and did not fixing. This change was made nearly a month ago and as I just emailed, I am proposing a patch to correct it. Can you confirm the change I proposed to the version in CVS now fixes it. Please can you explicitly state that the test is approved if that change is made. Dave
Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 13:18:17 UTC