W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

test cases - sketches

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:32:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+bug-C4yqOitNccArs-SM-vzhq0sYRcJ_yeJzs7nBPdkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Trying to figure out what kinds of test cases might even record
decisions about graph concepts.

Here's an experiment, below.


1. For each $X  from 'g-box', 'g-snap', 'g-text' ):

 Can this whatever-it-is RDF graphy-thing,

        <http://example.org/1> <http://example.org:80/2> "A" .

 ...ever be considered the self-same $X as

        <http://example.org/1:80> <http://example.org/2> "A" .

 (ie. one thing not two)

Expanded version:

Q: 1a) - Can <http://example.org/1> <http://example.org:80/2> "A" . be the
   same g-box as <http://example.org/1:80> <http://example.org/2> "A" . ?

   ... q might not make sense.
   Or "from the same g-box"?
A: Sure.

Q: 1b) - Can <http://example.org/1> <http://example.org:80/2> "A" . be the
   same g-snap as <http://example.org:80/1> <http://example.org:80/2> "A" . ?
A: No. They are different g-snaps because the RDF content does not
compare equal
   because they have different URI strings labelling different nodes (even if
   they always co-refer).

Q: 1c) - Can <http://example.org/1> <http://example.org:80/2> "A" . be the
   same g-text as <http://example.org:80/1> <http://example.org/2> "A" . ?
A: No. Considered textually, they have different forms, checksums, etc.

Q: 2.  Can <http://example.org/1> <http://example.org/2> "A" . ever NOT be the
   same g-snap as <http://example.org/1> <http://example.org/2> "A" . ?
A: Sure. Maybe. Don't know. This is an example test case we might debate.
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 16:33:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:09 UTC