- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:45:44 -0800
- To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 February 2013 16:31, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: >> On Feb 21, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 22 February 2013 12:45, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote: >>>> Hi Peter, >>>> >>>>> You may want to test against the new tests also [6], as the tests at >>>>> [7] do not test all of the features in the Candidate Recommendation. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the pointer! >>>> Do the new ones obsolete the old tests or should I test both? >>> >>> It can't hurt to test against both if you want to have backwards >>> compatibility with existing Turtle documents. However, there are no >>> references to either test suite in the current Candidate >>> Recommendation so it is not completely clear what to do at this stage. >>> For what it is worth, the original submission tests are also in the >>> mercurial repository at [8]. >> >> The two test manifests to run to show compliance with the CR Turtle spec are at [1] and [2]. If you provide EARL reports for either or both of these, they will be included in the compliance report. >> >> EARL reports should also include project DOAP information including the following: >> >> doap:name, doap:developer, doap:homepage, doap:description and doap:programming-language. >> >> Additionally, for the developer, foaf:name and foaf:homepage. >> >> An example of a previous run of the consolodated EARL report (just for the base tests) at [3]. >> >> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/tests-ttl/manifest.ttl >> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/coverage/tests/manifest.ttl >> [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/reports/index.html > > Thanks Gregg, > > Could you link to those in the specification, or in a linked document, > before the recommendation is finalised if possible. That was missed in the version that was released, I'll make sure an issue is created to track it. Gregg > Cheers, > > Peter
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 06:46:14 UTC