- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:05:20 -0600
- To: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
[...] > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/simple2/dawg-tp-04.rq [...] > Is my interpretation of the grammar correct and should these tests be > updated? Yes. Thanks for pointing out this problem with the test materials. The spec itself is in last call, where the WG has a rather formal obligation to address all comments. We'll eventually get around to cleaning up the test materials... the WG has been discussing it... [[ those are the only ones (4 IIRC) I'm aware of that have become erroneous due to syntax changes in the spec. ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0142.html ... meanwhile, I hope this is a satisfactory response regarding the spec itself. Please let us know whether it is. If you're satisfied, you can put [closed] in the subject of your reply to save us a bit of bookkeeping. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 15:05:25 UTC