Re: Implementation report

I created PR #441 (https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/441 <https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/441>, since merged) with your implementation report. Note that there were a number of errors that needed to be correct:

* The base IRI for the manifests is set in the context file, and should be, for example, <https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/tests/compact-manifest#t0001> not <https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/tests/compact-manifest.jsonld#t0001>.

* It’s worth doing a syntax check on your generated turtle, there were some errors. An example Assertion could be the following:

[ a earl:Assertion;
  earl:assertedBy <https://lepiller.eu/#me>;
  earl:subject <https://framagit.org/tyreunom/guile-jsonld>;
  earl:test <https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/tests/compact-manifest#t0001>;
  earl:result [
    a earl:TestResult;
    earl:outcome earl:passed;
    dc:date "2020-03-30T03:33:09+0200"^^xsd:dateTime ];
  earl:mode earl:automatic ] .

(note that closing “]” after the dateTime).

You can try using the “validate” command at http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller <http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller>, for one.

* Not that it’s significant, but the format of the timezone part of a dateTime should include a “:”, so  "2020-03-30T03:33:09+02:00"^^xsd:dateTime (see https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-timezones <https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-timezones>). It’s not used in the report, but a validator may/should mark it.

* If you add a doap:programming-language entry to your software description, it will be added to your test-subject description (https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/#subj_0 <https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/#subj_0>), which would be useful for people looking for an appropriate implementation.

You can see diffs to your source here (https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/441/commits/5c7fc4d783c7062ca195e9a142052bf0e4a30be9 <https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/441/commits/5c7fc4d783c7062ca195e9a142052bf0e4a30be9>) for future reference if you end up re-generating the report.

Anyway, congratulations for achieving such wide conformance, as you can see at https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/ <https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/>.

(Note, we’ll freeze the test suite later this week, and you might find some additional tests).

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

> On Mar 29, 2020, at 7:11 PM, Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> attached is an implementation report for guile-jsonld, an
> implementation of the JsonLD API in the GNU Guile language.
> 
> I haven't yet released a version of that library, so this report is for
> the current master branch. If you need a release, then I'll make one
> from that commit and give it a proper version number.
> 
> I haven't used or produced turtle documents before, but I tried to
> produce a document that hopefully makes sense. I'm not sure if what I
> did is correct, especially in the results, so please tell me if
> anything is wrong, so i can correct it.
> 
> My library implements only JsonLD version 1.1, so I skiped tests
> designed only for JsonLD 1.0. I still included them with a result of
> earl:inapplicable. Is it correct, or should I simply not include
> skiped tests?
> 
> I haven't implemented any of the features tested by the to RDF and from
> RDF test suites, and my implementation of features tested by the HTML
> test suite is lacking (my main issue being that there doesn't seem to
> be an HTML parser for Guile, I used an xml parser instead, but it's not
> enough). I haven't included any results from these three test suites.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Julien Lepiller
> <guile-jsonld-earl.ttl>