- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:41:02 +0100
- To: "'Guus Schreiber'" <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:24 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote: > On 13-02-14 20:11, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:38 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > >> On Feb 13, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote: > >>> On 12-02-14 21:52, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > >>>> Also, Guus removed the test-suite location from the header of each > >>>> spec, and replaced the implementation report with a reference to > >>>> the rdf11-testcases doc. If anything, I think I would change that > >>>> to be the generic test-suite location, and either restore the > >>>> implementation report to the actual implementation report location > >>>> for that spec, or just leave it out. > >>> > >>> OK, fine with that. So, these will be the locations I'll put in the > >> files: > >>> > >>> Concepts: > >>> Needs to have an impl report; suggest we link to the Testcases > Note > >>> Semantics > >>> test suite: http://www.w3.org/2013/rdf-mt-tests/ > >>> impl report: http://www.w3.org/2013/rdf-mt-reports/index.html > > [...] > >> > >> +1 Works for me. > > > > Sorry, but wasn't the whole reason to create the RDF11-TESTCASES > document to > > have everything in one place? So, why don't we just link from each > document > > to RDF11-TESTCASES? > > That was indeed my preference, but I can also live with Gregg's > proposal. I suggest you two reach a consensus. Either way is fine for > me. I think what Gregg said was to s/Implementation report/Test suite/ in each document's header (pointing to RDF11-TESTCASES) and either adding a direct link to the implementation report corresponding to the spec at hand or leaving it out. My preference would be to leave it out. Gregg, is that what you proposed? > > Also, referencing an "Implementation report" from the header of Concepts > > looks very weird to me given that Concepts isn't implementable. IMO > > it should be removed. > > Pubrules requires a link to an implementation report. The Test Cases It doesn't have to be in the header though. The "Please see the Working Group's implementation report" in the SOTD is enough. > document is exactly the right link for Concepts, I think. See the > explicit remark: > > [[ > RDF 1.1 Concepts [RDF11-CONCEPTS] does not have a test suite and is > not directly implemented in software; instead, it is implemented by the > specs which build on it, including the other specs in this set. > ]] I know, I added it. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 19:41:36 UTC