on test #grddlonrdf

David wrote:

 > In any event, GRDDL test case 
http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/#grddlonrdf
 > is clearly flawed and should be corrected or deleted in an
 > erratum, because the GRDDL spec at
 > http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#rule_rdfxbase
 > talks about a "conforming RDF/XML document"
 > http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#rule_rdfxbase
 > but, assuming the RDF Validator is correct, the input of that
 > test case is not a conforming RDF/XML document.

I was aware of this but didn't feel strongly that it invalided the test, 
but probably I should have alerted the group to the issue a bit more ....
see e.g.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Mar/0038

or view source on the Jena EARL results in say

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Apr/att-0160/earl.rdf

and the initial comment shows the complete trace of the the run.

However, if you were to suggest an erratum, I point out that the tests 
are definitely not in error (since it doesn't depend on #rule_rdfxbase), 
it's more the comment (which does so depend) that is arguably in error.

[[
Testing GRDDL attributes on RDF documents
input output
**jjc: the output is a legitimate GRDDL result on any possible reading**
xml,merge,rdfx-base

** David's argument could be used to dispute the validity of the input 
doc as a GRDDL result, which would invalid this comment ***
Note that the input is an RDF document with a GRDDL transformation, and 
that according to the rules given by the GRDDL Specification, there are 
three distinct and equally valid output graphs for this test for this 
document. This output is a graph that is merge of the graph given by the 
source document with the graph given by the result of the GRDDL 
transformation.
]]


Also note the further similar test:

Testing GRDDL attributes on RDF documents with XML media type

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 10:09:03 UTC