Re: Pending issue of JSON-LD Implementation Report

Tristan, thanks for the report, and congratulations on reaching such a level of conformance! I have integrated it into the updated JSON-LD Implementation report [1].

I noticed the following errors in the report, which kept it from running smoothly the first time:

* You were asserting results against test manifests that had an alternate capitalization, for example, <http://json-ld.org/test-suite/tests/Compaction-manifest.jsonld#t0001> should be <http://json-ld.org/test-suite/tests/compaction-manifest.jsonld#t0001>, This was true for all of the test manifests. I'm not sure how this might have been changed. I updated the results appropriately
* Flattining-manifest should be flatten-manifest
* Compaction-manifest should be compact-manifest
* Expansion-manifest should be expand-manifest
* Deserialize RDF to JSON-LD-manifest should be fromRdf-manifest
* Error handling-manifest should be error-manifest
* Remote document-manifest should be remote-doc-manifest
* Serialization to RDF-manifest should be toRdf-manifest
* It's fine to include results for normalization and framing, but they are not included in the report. However, for future reference, the manifest names are "normalize-manifest.jsonld" and "frame-manifest.jsonld".
* as before, you were setting the earl:outcome to "earl:passed", rather than earl:passed. This makes it a string literal, when it's expected to be a QName. Same for "earl:automatic".

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

[1] http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/

On Oct 10, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Tristan King <tristan.king@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is the latest report (also available in other formats if you go to the reports directory):
> 
> https://github.com/jsonld-java/jsonld-java/blob/1.0-dev/core/reports/report.ttl
> 
> Everything passes except for the remote document tests, but i figured these are less important than the core tests, and this is something I need some extra time to think about how to tackle (which i don't have at the moment).
> 
> There's still some more work to be done before this branch can be merged into master and released, hopefully it wont be too long before I have time again to get this done.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Tristan
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> CCing public-linked-json@w3.org.
> 
> We'd really like to have an implementation report for java-jsonld, and we're waiting another several days. If you can submit something with whatever coverage, later this week, that would be great!
> 
> Gregg Kellogg
> gregg@greggkellogg.net
> 
> On Oct 8, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Tristan King <tristan.king@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I have had time the last few days to work on this and wanted to see how far I got by the end of today before I replied. I feel I'll need a few more days to get everything back up to speed and all the tests passing, so if you submit the report before then it's probably best to not include jsonld-java in it (or simply include the one Peter posted in an earlier mail). I'll respond again with an updated report when I'm done.
>> 
>> Peter: I made a different branch because i've changed the code quite a bit and though it would be good to keep your branch to make it easier to regenerate the reports you did if we needed. In hindsight probably unnecessary, but it doesn't really matter in the end.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not available this week for development and cannot regenerate the report myself as i am only able to email from mobile. Tristan has started to do some work on more required updates to reflect the spec changes but he has created a separate branch to me so I am not sure what is happening at this stage as I would have expected given this thread that he would have added to the branch I created...
>> 
>> --
>> Peter
>> 
>> On 08/10/2013, at 4:01 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> There's a fair chance we'll finalize the implementation report soon. If Gould like Java-jsonld to be included, please let us know if and when you'll be submitting a report, otherwise, we'll leave it out of the PR implementation report.
>>> 
>>> Gregg Kellogg
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Oct 2, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Tristan King <tristan.king@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I actually started working on the updates a few weeks ago but work took priority again pretty quickly. I have some time this week to do some more work on it, will see how far I get by the end of the week.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2 October 2013 09:40, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 2 October 2013 09:21, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> (By the way, Gavin Carothers was complaining about extremely poor performance of de-serializing large JSON-LD documents using java-jsonld on IRC the other day, not sure if you're aware of such a problem).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Gregg
>>>> >
>>>> > I wasn't aware of that but we haven't performed any performance tests so far.
>>>> >
>>>> > I am aware of at least one place where we convert input documents into
>>>> > a Java String, which is inefficient for very large documents and could
>>>> > be improved to stream into Jackson using a Reader with a few minor
>>>> > changes.
>>>> 
>>>> I eliminated our conversion of all inputs to String's and pushed the
>>>> changes to GitHub [1]. Now everything is streamed into Jackson from
>>>> Readers (InputStreamReaders+UTF-8 for InputStreams).
>>>> 
>>>> CC'ng Gavin to this so he is aware of that change which may improve
>>>> his issues. We should now be streaming for both input and output, as
>>>> long as code uses the non-String based methods from JsonUtils.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Peter
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsonld-java/jsonld-java
>>>> 
>> 
> 
>