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

Re: Comment on Test Cases

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:26:10 +0000
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030221112610.0e0fe218.dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:00:59 +0100
Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> 
> > >
> > > 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)
> >
> > Brian, please give this an issue number.
> 
> Yes please - I disaagree with this test, which is the substantive issue - an
> approved test that disagrees with the Syntax doc.

I'm still unsure what you are exactly disagreeing with.  Can you say
which of the following you mean:

1) The test case file content needs to be changed to fix the test
   solution: change the content

2) The test is wrong (tests the wrong thing, not testable, ...)
   solution: delete this test case file.

3) The test case is the wrong type - it should be negative rather
   than positive, needs renaming
   solution: rename test case file to negative, adjust manifest

4) The syntax doc needs changing to match the test case
   solution: change the syntax doc

More than one of these may be needed.

This same test case is also in another LC issue:
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#krech-01

although that takes the syntax doc as in error; I'm not sure which is
wrong now - the test case or the syntax doc.  Anyway, I expect a
solution here will deal with both of them.
 

> 
> >
> > Jeremy, the misunderstanding arose in the following week's teleconference:
> >
> > 	http://www.w3.org/2003/01/17-rdfcore-irc
> >
> > the exchange recorded (minimally) starting with timestamp 15:28:45
> >
> > [[
> > 15:28:45 [daveb-scr] gone some pending test cases
> > 15:29:03 [daveb-scr] either we approve them or leave till LC process
> > 15:29:07 [daveb-scr] bwm: what are pending?
> > 15:29:39 [daveb-scr] bwm: weren't they approved last week
> > 15:29:47 [daveb-scr] jang: ok
> > 15:29:52 [daveb-scr] bwm: approved, done here
> > ]]
> >
> >
> 
> Pretty minimalist :).

Yeah, I scribed and I can't work out what that means :)

Dave
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 06:28:42 GMT

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