Re: extra comments on test cases

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>> Why not? :) You are saying that there is an open issue, when there
>> isn't. With whom else should I have a discourse? :)
> With Ben, who has not agreed yet with the test case, and not with me who
> submitted a test case that is in line with what you argue for!

To be fair, Mark - my parser wouldn't generate any triples for Unit Test
#88 because Section 7 (CURIE Syntax Definition) states:

A CURIE is comprised of two components, a prefix and a reference. The
prefix is separated from the reference by a colon (:). It is possible to
omit the prefix, and make use of the default prefix. It is also possible
to omit both the prefix and the colon, leaving just a reference.

It doesn't say that "It is also possible to omit the reference, leaving
just the prefix and the colon". "_:" is an invalid CURIE as far as the
spec is concerned.

Per the spec as it stands right now, Unit Test 88 shouldn't generate any

>>> Let us make it simple: the group
>>> has to approve that test case. It hasn't yet.
>> Fine. But that's no different to any other test case.
> Most of the test cases that I submitted last week have been, afaik,
> agreed on; only two have raised issues in the group and are, hence,
> undecided. This is one of the two.

Not quite, Ivan. We looked at them briefly last week before Ben had to
go on vacation, Ben agreed to most, and there were a number of changes
to the SPARQL that needed to be made.

Michael has since made those changes, but we still have a couple of
technical issues with the SPARQL and the Test Harness.

There have been no resolutions as of yet to accept Unit Tests #78-#88...
we were hoping to do that in this weeks telecon.

-- manu

Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: RDFa Basics in 8 minutes (video)

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 19:14:01 UTC