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

Re: Test cases for literal equality?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:56:36 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135450.0318a978@127.0.0.1>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Dave,

Thanks for the response.

Maybe I should have said:  I is not my intent to push on any of these 
issues -- they were posted mainly for feedback, to be noted or ignored as 
folks feel fit.

#g
--

At 11:32 13/03/2003 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:

> >>>Graham Klyne said:
> >
> > Do we have any test cases for dealing with literal equality?
> >
> > In particular, I'm wondering if the recent discussion of XML literals and
> > canonicalization will have any effect of the interpretation of language
> > tags for typed literals.  Currently, if I have the details right, typed
> > literals with different language tags are distinct values in the abstract
> > graph, but always denote the same thing, with the exception of XML
> > literals.  Plain literals are language-tag sensitive.  What about 
> xsd:string?
>
>xsd:string is a datatype in the XSD specification and from what I
>recall, RDF doesn't use it - no RDF literal is an xsd:string nor has
>one as a part, although the lexical form definition is compatible
>with it.  A quick grep in the concepts WD confirms this as far
>as I can tell.  So we don't need to test xsd:string comparisons.
>
>
> > I didn't find any entailment tests covering this area.
>
>The nearest we have is
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-charmod-uris/
>
>which checks that the literals from the syntax (RDF/XML) correctly
>get into the RDF graph (as N-Triples)
>
>Slightly related, there is the N-Triples test, which exercises the
>N-Triples syntax by having many forms.  It should entail itself.
>Linked from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntrip_tests
>to http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt
>and includes many XML Literal forms; which I guess I should check are
>appropriately canonical.
>
> > While I'm on this topic, I assume it's clear that the following describe
> > the same graph:
> >
> > [[
> > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'
> >           xmlns:ex='http://www.example.org/xxx/a>
> >    <ex:subj>
> >       <ex:prop>abc</ex:prop>
> >    </ex:subj>
> > </rdf:RDF>
> > ]]
> >
> > and
> >
> > [[
> > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'
> >           xmlns:ex='http://www.example.org/xxx/>
> >    <ex:asubj>
> >       <ex:aprop>abc</ex:aprop>
> >    </ex:asubj>
> > </rdf:RDF>
> > ]]
> >
> > ...
>(With a bit of fixing up - missing 's)
>
>Yes.
>
> > On my attempt to use it for real, I'm finding the test cases document
> > difficult to follow, for two main reasons:
> >
> > (a) it is formatted as a very wide document, such that the full width will
> > not fit on my display.
> >
> > (b) the test cases are not obviously organized by functional groups, 
> but by
> > issue.  While it made sense to use an issue-based organization for
> > assembling the tests, I think a more functionally oriented arrangement
> > would better serve the goal of clarifying questions about deign intent.
>
>I'll leave this for Jan to say more on but I feel it would be a much
>longer document without the 5 column tables to summarise the tests
>and the test cases are for the issues - that is where the discussion
>lies.  The test cases WD shouldn't try to duplicate that.
>
>Dave

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 10:32:44 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:13 EDT