- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:15:55 -0400
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
> On 3 Sep 2015, at 12:57, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > > An RDF testing CG could create forks of the various tests, and maintain them indefinitely on GitHub, or some similar infrastructure. I know that several people of suggested updating the SPARQL specs to consider the RDF 1.1 data model, as well as correct other deficiencies. Great idea. Richard > This would need to consider WGs re-chartering (e.g., SPARQL 1.2) and reclaiming such test suites. It really needs more consideration by W3C staff. > > Obviously, adding some of Ruben’s tests to the various test suites would be useful. > > Gregg > >>> Here the scheme is missing from @base, so it clearly needs to be resolved, but will yield different results from <http://a/bb/ccc/../d;p?q> (assuming file location/previous base used http scheme), which would be pretty odd. >> >> So while it is certainly odd, I'm afraid it is the correct way, >> because <http://a/bb/ccc/../d;p?q> is not relative and should thus not be resolved, >> if we follow what the Turtle spec says. >> >> That is, if I interpret correctly. What do you think? >> >> Best, >> >> Ruben
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:16:28 UTC