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

Re: Error in RDF parser test cases?

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:43:33 +0100 (BST)
To: Arjohn Kampman <arjohn.kampman@aidministrator.nl>
cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0209231342140.28199-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Arjohn Kampman wrote:

> Jan Grant wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Arjohn Kampman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>My question concerns the given output files for two (approved) tests
> >>from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ , namely tests 4 and 6 of
> >>rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema.
> >>
> >>In the document it is suggested that all relative URIs should be
> >>resolved against the base URI
> >>
> >>     http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/
> >>
> >>but the expected output that is given for the two mentioned test cases
> >>looks to have been resolved against the actual URL of the test case. Is
> >>this an error in the document?
> >
> >
> > This is an error in the document. Test cases are being revised to
> > include xml base where appropriate.
>
> I think I've found another error in test 4 of
> rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema which isn't related to the xml base
> issue.
>
> According to the latest revised syntax specification, the rdf:ID="e4"
> attribute of the last list item indicates that the concerned statement
> should be reified. However, in the accompanying output file the value
> "e4" is used to name the object of this statement, like it was defined
> in the specification of 18 December 2001.
>
> I think the last two lines of the output file should be replaced with
> the following 6 lines:
>
> _:bar <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_4> _:res2.
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/#e4>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Statement>.
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/#e4>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#subject> _:bar.
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/#e4>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#predicate>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_4>.
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/#e4>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#object> _:res2.
>
> _:res2 <http://foo/bar> "foobar".
>
>
> Is this correct?

Looking at the appropriate production rules (editor's working draft at
http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#emptyPropertyElt
), my reading is that you are correct. I'll confirm this with Dave
Beckett - if he agrees, I'll modify the test case.


-- 
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/
I'm the dandy information superhighwayman.
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 08:45:52 GMT

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