W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Pending issue of JSON-LD Implementation Report

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:59:44 -0800
Cc: Tristan King <tristan.king@gmail.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-Id: <352A0AFD-6B51-4F42-AFA4-619590DD7FEF@greggkellogg.net>
To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
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%! Iíve 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:41 UTC