- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:58:55 -0500
- To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Cc: <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Dec 12, 2006, at 4:11 AM, McBride, Brian wrote: > I note the result [3] contains > > [[ > <rdf:Description rdf:about=""> > <transformation xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" > rdf:resource="RDFa2RDFXML.xsl"/> > </rdf:Description> > ]] > > The rdf:about refers to the RDF document, which from my reading of the > latest (editors draft) RDF/A spec [4] is incorrect - see 4.3.3.1. It > should refer to the source document. Odd; I would have thought that sort of thing would show up when I ran the tests. I wonder if the test harness does something there... i.e. treats the output document as a representation (a la a cached copy) of the source URI. > I note also that the property in this statement has a URI of > http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmltransformation and is affected by the > default namespace in effect in the head of the source document. I > think > the test case accurately reflects the spec, but that still looks a bit > broken to me. Indeed, that is odd. Fabien? > The statement > > [[ > <rdf:Description > rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/"> > <dc:title xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RDF Semantics > - W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004</dc:title> > </rdf:Description> > ]] > > The RDF/A spec says the object of this property should be an XML > literal > (see 4.4.1) and the RDF spec [5] says that XML literals and plain > literals are disjoint. I think this may be a problem with the RDF/A > spec. > > I've run out of time - too many specs to read, but there is another > issue that I think I ought to raise. (Must you - do I hear?) > > I'd like to see a separation between test cases and examples. I'd > prefer test cases that were small, simple, verifiable by inspection and > didn't carry any baggage such as "is this a correct interpretation of > the RDF/A spec". Our test cases are going beyond what the spec > defines, > e.g. in illustrating practice for XSLT transforms - and Dan asked > recently whether they should be normative. Is it then a good idea to > include an RDF/A transform as a test case? Small, simple test cases are more than welcome. The best way to show what you'd like is to contribute it. (Thanks for the base URI tests; I intend to pore over them in detail shortly). I see a lot of value in test cases that integrate real-world examples, so that's what I intend to contribute. The fact that you found a quirk around http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmltransformation is an important part of the process. I think it was a bit above and beyond the call of duty to read the RDFa spec, but I'm not sorry we got you to take a look. > Its relatively > straighforward to have a different class called examples - though some > work for someone to set it up. I have done some work in that direction; note the "Example/advocacy/application test ideas" section heading in the test overview. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist1 I was thinking that tests would migrate out of there when they transition from ideas to actual tests, but I'm OK with maintaining a separation. > Brian > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/12/06-grddl-wg-irc > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist1#rdfa1 > [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/rdf_sem-output.rdf > [4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/ > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2006 16:59:17 UTC