W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Please do not cross post [was: Re: Comment on RDF Test Cases

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:53:21 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030129095135.0cb4fcd0@localhost>
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Please do not cross post to multiple mailing lists.  This is a last call 
comment.  Lets take on rdf-comments.

Brian


At 11:29 28/01/2003 +0000, Jan Grant wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > This is a last call comment concerning the test case schema
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/testSchema
> >
> > which I am making wearing the hat of an OWL Test Case editor.
> >
> > (Sorry I should have made this comment earlier).
> >
> > Within OWL Tests we reuse the RDF testSchema.
> > Unfortunately the rdfs:comment-s within it, do not foresee such reuse. For
> > example test:issue should be described as relating a test to an issue, 
> rather
> > than a test to an RDF Core issue.
> >
> > Please generalize the comments on the following resources
> >   test:approval
> >   test:issue
> >   test:status
> >
> >
> > e.g.
> >
> >     <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">Indicates the status of the test 
> according to
> > RDF Core WG process.</rdfs:comment>
> >
> > =>
> >
> >     <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">Indicates the status of the test within a
> > process, such as the RDF Core WG process.</rdfs:comment>
> >
> >
> > Jeremy Carroll, Editor OWL Test Cases
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test
>
>I think doing so makes a lot of sense. I need some indication from chair
>or process expert as to whether this change should be done immediately
>(since the schema lives "outside" the LC WD) or at the end of LC
>process.
>
>jan
>
>--
>jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
>Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
>"Sufficiently large"="infinite" for sufficiently large values of 
>"sufficiently"
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 04:53:58 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:24 EDT