W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Turtle tests blank ID patches, and EARL report for Serd

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:33:19 +0000
Message-ID: <512C734F.80908@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org


On 25/02/13 23:20, Gavin Carothers wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com
> <mailto:ansell.peter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  > On 26 February 2013 05:30, Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name
> <mailto:gavin@carothers.name>> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:13 PM, David Robillard <d@drobilla.net
> <mailto:d@drobilla.net>> wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >>
>  > >> Issue: There are tests-ttl tests that do not match the current grammar
>  > >> [2], e.g. turtle-syntax-prefix-02.ttl contains "PreFIX :
>  > >> <http://example/>", but the grammar only allows PREFIX.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > The grammar no longer specifies all of the case rules in Turtle,
>  > > specifically Note #1 of the Grammar section
>  > >
> (https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar):
>  > >
>  > > Keywords in single quotes ('@base', '@prefix', 'a', 'true',
> 'false') are
>  > > case-sensitive. Keywords in double quotes ("BASE", "PREFIX") are
>  > > case-insensitive.
>  >
>  > David Wood mentioned that the group was still considering whether to
>  > make @base and @prefix case-insensitive.
>
>
> Mmm... that is news to me. I do know that the whole BASE, PREFIX
> addition is a feature at risk.
>
>  >
>  >
>  > > This is a editoral change from the LC document
>  > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-turtle-20120710/#sec-grammar-grammar
> see change
>  > > set https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/rev/d3e8ccd67c9c  and the thread
>  > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Dec/0074.html
>  >
>  > You referred to that as a LC document. Did you mean "Last Call"? That
>  > document looked to be a Working Draft, per its title, and it appeared
>  > as though there was no Last Call for Turtle [1] (hence the flood of
>  > enquiries now!).
>
>
> There was! Really!
> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/07/13/rdf-working-group-publishes-turtle-as-last-call-working-draft/
>
> Document maturity level: Working Draft.

The LC document is:

http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/

"""
This document was published by the RDF Working Group as a Candidate 
Recommendation.
"""

>
> Documents don't claim in their left hand header to be Last Call :\ In
> the "Status of This Document" section you'll find:
>
> "This is a Last Call Working Draft and thus the Working Group has
> determined that this document has satisfied the relevant technical
> requirements and is sufficiently stable to advance through the Technical
> Recommendation process"
>
>  >
>  > Cheers,
>  >
>  > Peter
>  >
>  > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 08:33:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:31 UTC