W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > December 2014

Re: issues with TriG Test Suite

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 11:32:16 -0800
Cc: public-rdf-comments@w3.org, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Message-Id: <1F690E09-7326-4146-9A0A-936CCD65B9CD@greggkellogg.net>
To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
> On Dec 28, 2014, at 1:53 AM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gregg,
> 
>> Indeed, I'll send a fixed Manifest to Ivan for him to update
> 
> Great, thanks for that!
> 
>> Where did you find the <http://www.w3.org/2013/TriGTests/> URL? The RDF 1.1 Test Cases document [1] references <http://www.w3.org/2013/TrigTests/>.
> 
> - http://www.w3.org/2013/TrigTests/trig-subm-27.trig contains http://www.w3.org/2013/TriGTests/,
>  and so does http://www.w3.org/2013/TrigTests/trig-subm-27.nq 
> - The TriG spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/trig/) uses http://www.w3.org/2013/TriGReports/index.html

Actually, it's in the README as the defined base for trig-subm-01.trig as well as trig-subm-27.trig; it must have been missed by all other developers as they silently handle 301 redirection. The test results all report TrigTests rather than TriGTests. Probably the cleanest is to change the README and .nq result files. I'm concerned that changing this actually invalidates tests, where the result is defined to include TriGTests due to the defined base IRI being <http://www.w3.org/2013/TriGTests/>. If we were to change, it would affect README, trig-subm-01.nq, trig-subm-27.nq and trig-subm-27.trig (comment only).

At this point, I think that no change is probably best. Is following redirection a problem for your test harness?

Gregg

>> Not an official response, but _:s is a Blank Node, not a PName, so it is defined as "_:" followed by PN_CHARS_BASE, which doesn't include ':'. PNAME_LN uses PN_LOCAL, which does include ':'. I believe the test is valid.
> 
> Yes, I think you are right. That's good news.
> 
>> I can certainly create a new report
> 
> Good. I'll fix the blank node issue then, and then I'll have a fully compliant parser.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ruben
Received on Sunday, 28 December 2014 19:32:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:30:00 UTC