- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:59:44 -0800
- To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Cc: Tristan King <tristan.king@gmail.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Gregg, > > Please find attached an updated conformance report for JSONLD-Java. Congratulations on getting to 100%! I’ve updated the report <http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/>. Note that there was a small error in the report, you defined the project using <http://github.com/jsonld-java/jsonld-java>, but referenced it as <https://github.com/jsonld-java/jsonld-java>. I updated to use HTTPS. Gregg > Thanks, > > Peter Ansell and Tristan King > > On 11 October 2013 05:53, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > <report.ttl>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 02:00:16 UTC