- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:55:24 -0700
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On 04/19/2017 12:35 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > > On 04/19/2017 01:54 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> On 04/19/2017 07:16 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> The WG is eager to receive people's SHACL test cases, both single-feature unit >>> tests, and more complex edge cases and real-world examples. If you have any >>> of these, please send them along. See >>> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-test-suite/ for details. >>> >>> Given the short timeline, the group is going to need to stop accepting >>> submissions for this round soon. If you can, please send in your test cases >>> by *Tuesday, 25 April*. If this deadline is too soon, please let us know >>> about your plans, and we'll try to work something out. Test cases submitted >>> later will still be helpful to implementors, but will not be used as part of >>> W3C's Recommendation Track process. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> -- Sandro (on behalf of RDF Data Shapes WG) >> >> The test cases process in that document still has problems, making it >> difficult to submit good test cases. Cutting off test cases before the test >> case process is adequate is not good. > > Sorry if I missed something there, would you mind opening a quick issue at > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues (hopefully mentioning tests in issue > title)? There are already two email threads in this mailing list on problems with the testing methodology, starting at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Mar/0024.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Mar/0033.html. The second one has not received any substantive response from the working group at all. Is https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues the place for SHACL issues? It is not mentioned as such in https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-shacl-20170411/ > Do you think it's too much to ask people who think they might submit tests to > at least identify themselves by next Tuesday? We need some way to get this > process to converge. Why the sudden need to quickly converge? The test suite is currently very small, if there is a need for a better test suite right now then the working group as a whole should be producing tests. It is also strange to issue a "Last Call" for tests without any previous calls for tests. > -- Sandro peter
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 21:56:02 UTC