W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > August 2014

Re: regression testing [was Re: summarizing proposed changes to charter]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:45:20 -0700
Message-ID: <53ECD990.8050601@gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
On 08/13/2014 08:14 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 10:04 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> OK, even though regression testing doesn't need canonicalization, it is
>> useful to have RDF canonicalization to support a particular regression
>> testing system.
>> But how is the lack of a W3C-blessed method for RDF canonicalization
>> hindering the development or deployment of this system?  How would a
>> W3C-blessed method for RDF canonicalization help the development or
>> deployment of this system?
>> The system could use any canonical form whatsoever, after all, right?
> Yes and no.  The lack of a W3C-blessed method of RDF canonicalization makes
> the comparison dependant on the particular canonicalization tool that is used,
> which means that RDF data produced by different tools (or different versions
> of the same tool) could not be reliably compared.  In many scenarios this
> won't be an issue, but it will in some.

Maybe, but regression testing appears to me to be a scenario where this is 
definitely not an issue.  The regression testing system can simply have one 
particular canonicalization tool or method that it uses.

> But more importantly, the lack of a standard RDF canonicalization method
> discourages the development of canonicalization tools.

Well, maybe, but in the absence of a need for a standard for RDF 
canonicalization then this does not appear to be a problem to be addressed by 

 > Canonicalization has
> gotten little attention in RDF tools, in my view largely *because* of the
> difficulty of doing it and the lack of a W3C-blessed method.  It is
> non-trivial to implement, and if one's implementation would just end up as
> one's own idiosyncratic canonicalization anyway, instead of being an
> implementation of a standard, then there isn't as much motivation to do it.  I
> think a W3C-blessed method would help a lot.
> Would you be okay with canonicalization being an OPTIONAL deliverable?

Without a demonstrated need for W3C standardization of RDF canonicalization, 
and, further, a demonstrated need in the context of this WG's general 
activities, I don't see that RDF canonicalization should be a part of the WG.

> David

Received on Thursday, 14 August 2014 15:45:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:40 UTC