Re: Merging and improving the Turtle test suite(s)

On Tue, 2013-02-26 at 15:42 -0800, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> 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.

Fair enough.  They serve as the canonical test suite for "classic
Turtle" support, and as an implementer I will keep them around for that
purpose regardless.  I suspect others will as well.

I don't care much if they are not included in the official test suite,
but IMO it'd be better if they were.  Despite not being a
recommendation, in reality Turtle is an established standard with a wide
implementation base and large amounts of existing data, and that test
suite has served for years.  Perhaps the new ones exhaustively cover the
same cases, but it's not immediately obvious if so.

> 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.

You're right, both new suites do work with that URI.  I was mistaken
that the other *required* a different one, I just happened to run it
with a different one and it worked.  Actually it does not care about the
base URI at all and will work correctly with anything.

The authority "example" with no TLD seems odd to me, but whatever.

-dr