RE: @instanceof tests

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