W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Additional tests for cyclic structures

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:35:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030929.143559.46351509.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Additional tests for cyclic structures
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:03:17 +0300

> I earlier reported that my code did not pass the test for cyclic structures:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/byIssue#I5.26-006
> 
> I fixed my code today. As I was half way through fixing the code, it passed 
> that test and did not fail any others (well that part of the code).
> 
> A colleague argues that you should only write code to pass tests - so I wrote 
> a few more tests to fail before writing the half of the cycle detection fix 
> to my code.
> 
> These are:
>   I5.26-008
>     A cycle of unnamed individuals
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.26-008
> 
>   I5.5-005
>    Well formed list comprehension
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.5-005
>   I5.5-006
>    A cylic list
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.5-006
>   I5.5-007
>    A list with itself inside an element.
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.5-007
> 
> The last three also investigate further the list comprehension rules.
> 
> (My code failed those tests and so I fixed it).
> 
> I imagine parsers such as Sean's and Peter's code cope with these no problem.
> 
> Jeremy

Well OWLP does now.  :-)
(It was missing the check for cycles of unnamed individuals.)

peter
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 14:36:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT