- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:42:23 -0800
- To: David Robillard <d@drobilla.net>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:50 PM, David Robillard <d@drobilla.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-02-26 at 21:27 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> On 26/02/13 21:13, David Robillard wrote: >>> The Turtle test suite situation is currently a bit of a mess. There's >>> the tests-ttl suite, the coverage suite, the old test suite from the >>> team submission [1], and some additions scattered about various >>> implementations. Each of these needs to be run in subtly different >>> ways. >> >> Could you say more? (I run them all the same way) > > Just minor things, but the issues I encountered were: > > * The required base URIs are different, one seems to be http://example/ > (which isn't even really valid), the other is > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/coverage/tests, > and the old one is http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/ Note that the submission tests are historical, and aren't used for the rollup EARL report. Also the README at < https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/tests-ttl/README> references <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Test_Suite>, which says that tests should all be run with an assumed base of <http://example/base/>. This could probably be more prominent, perhaps in a dc:comment within the Manifest. Gregg > * The old manifest is a bit different (it lacks test types) > > * To generate an EARL report with the correct test URIs, > tests-ttl/manifest.ttl must be parsed with a different base URI than the > tests themselves. > > * Strict byte-by-byte testing is prevented, the blank node stuff is > different for each, triple order is weird sometimes, and so on. It is > important to be able to test parsers and serialisers directly without > involving stores, blank node logic, etc. (some implementations are > modular and the syntax component does not include such things at all). > Partially addressed by my previous patches. > > I was less than happy with it being now required to parse the manifest > to run the tests, since with the old suite one could simply run the tool > on test-foo.ttl and check that the output matches test-foo.out, but > since many new tests have the same output, this is reasonable. Might be > nice to consistently use good-foo, bad-foo, etc. anyway, but this is not > important. > >>> In order to do this, the licensing issues of test-ttl/manifest.ttl >>> brought up by Dave Beckett [2] will need to be resolved,and perhaps >>> test-ttl/LICENSE is a problem as well. Otherwise I see no barriers (and >>> licensing problems for things like this is silly, really) >> >> The LICENSE file is the W3C Software License. >> >> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 >> >> what's the problem with that? > > I don't pay much attention to W3C bureaucracy and have no idea if there > is a problem with that or not, but... > >> (note that the conformance test suite should be the W3C test suite >> license which has different provisions) > > ... it sounds like the entire suite should be under this license, so > stuff under another one is a problem of a sort if it is to be included > (I don't personally care about the licensing at all as long as it is > Free Software compatible). > > This is mostly just minor housekeeping stuff, it's just a bit of a mess. > It's not really clear what the distinction between these different > suites are, or why several exist at all. I'm guessing this is just > historical and only remains that way because nobody has done the work, > so I am volunteering to. > > If there is good reason for them being separate, that's fine, I can fix > them up independently much like the patches I have already sent to this > list. None of this should significantly affect implementations that can > already run the tests, but it will make life easier for more to do so. > > As far as non-superficial issues go, the only really important one is > that the current tests do not adequately cover the language. > > -dr >
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 23:42:53 UTC