W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2014

Re: RDF 1.1 Test Cases

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:06:38 -0800
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Message-Id: <BB73C5EA-2D3F-4768-B7B8-C381B3D80A0C@greggkellogg.net>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
The following are issues found in checking links and pub rules for RDF11-TESTCASES [1]

* Previous version link not found - A previous version is not required for WG Notes
* Document identifier information order - Previous version not required
* XML namespaces - http://www.w3.org/ns/rdftest# not found. Perhaps we should create such a namespace document; it's used from tests and implementation reports too. The others will be created when the note is published.

Link checker:

All references to EARL reports, which I suppose Sandro needs to put in place:

* http://www.w3.org/2013/rdf-mt-reports/index.html
* http://www.w3.org/2013/N-QuadsReports/index.html
* http://www.w3.org/2013/N-TriplesReports/index.html
* http://www.w3.org/2013/TrigReports/index.html
* http://www.w3.org/2013/RDFXMLTests/

CSAIL - http://www.csail.mit.edu/ timeout seems to load okay by hand

Other than the rdftest namespace document and putting the implementation reports in place, I think we're good to go in publishing the note.

Gregg Kellogg

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/drafts/rdf11-testcases/Overview.html

On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote:

> On 12-02-14 22:12, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> The document is updated, and I saved a draft to <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/drafts/rdf11-testcases/Overview.html>.
>> The PubRules checker finds issues, but it seems reasonable to me:
>> * Markup saved as HTML5, which I believe is okay, but this generates an error.
>> * Want's style sheet be be W3C-WD, but it's W3C-NOTE.
>> * Want's status to have W3C Working Draft, but has W3C Note.
>> * No Previous Version link.
>> * ...
>> There are more. I'm not sure that notes need to pass pubrules; let me know if there's something that needs to be done for this to pass cleanly.
> Notes do need to pass pubrules. I edited the ReSpec attributes a bit and removed the "Prtevious version" link manually from the static version [1], and now it passes pubrules (well, there is a HTML error).
> The inclusion of a "Previous version" looks like a ReSpec bug. I'll let them know.
> Guus
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/REC-drafts/NOTE-rdf11-testcases-20140225/Overview.html
>> Gregg Kellogg
>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 21:07:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC