W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Comments on the new RDF Test Cases draft

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:22:38 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020522190655.0305b2c0@15.144.25.13>
To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>, cmjg@engarde.ioctl.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
At 12:04 22/05/2002 -0500, patrick hayes wrote:
>>At 09:58 22/05/2002 -0400, Massimo Marchiori wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>So bare-bones, suppose an RDF parser digests one of the test cases, and 
>>>produces
>>>all the triples we expect to (as per the "minimal interpretation" currently
>>>understood in the Test Cases), plus the following triple:
>>>[rdf:type] [rdf:type] [rdf:Property] .
>>>Is it compliant to RDF, or not?
>>
>>No.
>
>Oh dear, I said 'yes'. Perhaps Massimo has a point after all :-)

That will teach me to keep my mouth shut :)


>How about the following. A compliant RDF/XML parser is required to produce 
>a (representation of a) syntactically equivalent graph. A compliant RDF 
>inference engine is required to only make rdf-valid inferences. The thing 
>that Massimo describes here is a combination of a compliant parser and a 
>compliant inference engine, which is indeed (in some grand sense) 
>RDF-compliant, but it's not a compliant RDF *parser*.
>
>Does that make sense?

It introduces a processing model, which we don't have.  It would be good to 
avoid introducing one if we can.

When I said no, I was thinking of parser tests, which in practise is what 
people will be using the tests for.  I think I was wrong as the question 
Massimo asked was not well formed.

We are not defining any notion of compliance, so there is no answer.  We do 
say, that for a given test case, the input RDF/XML represents the same 
graph as the supplied n-triples.  That is syntactic equivalence and that 
seems right to me.  Notions of semantic equivalence can be kept separate.

Sorry, Massimo; I was in too much of a hurry answering your mail and failed 
to engage brain above first gear.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 14:23:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT