W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: editorial suggestion for RDF Test Cases: wording re 'identical'

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 06:31:14 -0500
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030208113114.GB25999@tux.w3.org>

* Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> [2003-02-08 11:21+0000]
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-testcases-20030123/
> >
> > 'Most directories have a name that is identical to the related
> > issue in the RDF Issue Tracking document. For example, the directory
> > rdf-ns-prefix-confusion is identical to the  rdf-ns-prefix-confusion issue.'
> >
> > The directory and the issue aren't identical; only their names.
> >
> > Perhaps something like this would work?:
> >
> > Most directories have a name that is identical to that of the
> > corresponding issue in the RDF Issue Tracking document.
> > For example, the directory 'rdf-ns-prefix-confusion' is named after the
> > 'rdf-ns-prefix-confusion' issue.
> >
> > cheers,
> 
> On reflection, since the manifest file captures the relationship between
> a test case and any related issue, I'm inclined to simply strike this
> text.
> 
> Would that suffice?

Since there is (generally) a mapping, it is probably worth pointing this 
out for human readers. It doesn't matter to me a great deal either way, 
it's an editorial discretion thing I think. As currently phrased it is a bit
confusing; either striking or rephrasing would work for me.

Dan
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2003 06:31:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT