Re: Comment on Test Cases

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> There's a substantive issue but to play games I will start with it as
>
> Procedurally:
>
> [[
> The negative testcase
> rdfms-nested-bagIDs/test007.rdf
>
> is recorded as having been approved at
>
> RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-01-10
>
> however it is not recorded as such in the minutes; nor was it in the agenda.
>
> I request that the positive test case
> rdfms-nested-bagIDs/test007.rdf
> as approved at
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0235.html
>
> be shown in this document.
> ]]
>
> moreover,
> [[
> I think the test was correct as originally stated and is currently incorrect.
> ]]
>
> (I am happy to ignore the procedural issue, really - but I did follow the
> links and was disappointed = i.e. I still can't tell why this test got
> changed - nor can I tell why I didn't vote against such change)

Jeremy, thanks, I'll track this down.

What's the substantive issue?

-- 
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/
They modified their trousers secretly.