- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:50:24 +0100
- To: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 01:07:17 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > Steve Harris wrote: > >http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~swh/protocol-tests/data/construct/ > > > >A step towards completing 'ACTION SteveH: elaborate "CONSTRUCT with content > >negotiation" into a test case' > > > >I've not run it, and in particular the data is just back-extrapolated from > >the query and results, so it might not be as intended. > > > >There is no schema for the manifest yet, I'l write one if its deemed > >acceptable. > > > >PS Kendall, in this example in the protocol doc. revision 1.57 theres not > > enough escaping in the query. > > > >- Steve > > > > A test is modelled as name/action/result where action is often a pair of > query and data file. This split could be used here: > > rdfs:label "CONSTRUCT with content negotiation" ; > mf:action [ > ptest:data <conneg-data.rq> ; > ptest:query <conneg-query.rq> ; > ptest:acceptType "text/rdf+n3, application/rdf+xml" ; > ptest:defaultGraph <http://my.example/jose/foaf.rdf> ; > ] ; > > mf:result [ > ptest:preferredResult [ ... ] ; > ptest:compliantResult [ ....] ; > ptest:compliantResult [ ....] ; > ] ; I can see that grouping the action under a single node makes things clearer, but adding a level of indirenction to the results seems a bit pointless. Anyway, I'll go with whatever most people prefer. - Steve
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 12:51:14 UTC