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

Re: Comments on RDF test cases

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:53:33 +0000 (GMT)
To: Arjohn Kampman <arjohn.kampman@castel.nl>
cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0303211233410.10520-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Arjohn Kampman wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> I have two comments on the RDF test cases of 23 January 2003:
>
> Issue 1: A lot of the .rdf files in the test cases do not have an
> appropriate <?xml ...?> header. Maybe these should be added?

They should; (in addition, the copyright notices should be changed from
INRIA: Brian, 30 seconds AOB for telecon today on this)

Accepted as editorial.

> Issue 2: The test cases error-009.rdf, error-010.rdf and error-020.rdf
> in rdfms-rdf-names-use look obsolete to me. These test cases are about
> rdf:aboutEach and rdf:aboutEachPrefix, which have been removed from the
> RDF spec some time ago. Use of these attributes is already covered by
> the test cases in rdfms-abouteach.

Those test cases together deal with aboutEach and aboutEachPrefix in
element and attribute positions. It seems to me that they should all
remain. The manifest files correctly list all these cases as errors.
I'm not proposing to do anything further on this, unless there's a
particular problem..?

Cheers,
jan

-- 
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/
Theory and practice _are_ the same thing. In theory.
Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 07:53:46 GMT

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