- From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:45:56 +0200
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "W3C RDFa task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ivan, Thanks a lot, indeed. If there are no objections from the TF, I'll directly add them to the Test Suite (together with the one proposed by Fabien [1]). Cheers, Michael [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Sep/0069. html ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hausenblas, MSc. Institute of Information Systems & Information Management JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH http://www.joanneum.at/iis/ ---------------------------------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] >Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:40 PM >To: W3C RDFa task force; Hausenblas, Michael >Subject: @instanceof tests > >Dear all, > >Ralph made me realize last week that our test case suite[1] does not >contain any tests for @instanceof. It is probably a good idea to have >those, which would help us in finalizing the issues. So, urged by >Ralph:-) I created some. I attach those. > >Michael, I did not want to directly upload them and modify the wiki >page, I am not sure how you prefer to manage them, hence my >attachement. >I tried to follow the style of earlier tests, and I numbered them >starting 0050. Here is what they are: > >0050: @instanceof with @rel present, no @href, @resource, or @about >0051: @instanceof with @rel and @resource present, no @about >0052: @instanceof with @about and @rel present, no @resource >0053: @instanceof with @about, no @rel or @resource >0054: @instanceof without anything else >0055: @instanceof with a single @property >0056: @instanceof with @resource and nothing else >0057: @instanceof with @resource and nothing else, with a subelement > >Among those there are some that are not really controversial and the >sparql entries are quite obvious. The ones which seem to be a bit >controversial are 0054 and 0055; I tried to follow the spirit >of what is >currently in the syntax document in creating the sparql entry, but I >guess that should be discussed. > >I claim that 0050, though the sparql version seems to be what we want, >would _not_ pass a machine following the current document, see[2]. > >I also believe that 0053 would not pass the current specification >either. The reason is that the current version sets the >chaining flag if >the instanceof part generates any triple, which means that the [current >object resource] (a newly generated blank node in this case) will be >inherited by the children and not the value of @about > >I hope all this helps > >Ivan > >[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaTC >[2] >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007 Sep/0202.html > >-- > >Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 13:45:56 UTC