Re: RDF's relative IRI resolution is ambiguous

The group has been set up [1], please join if you’re interested in contributing.

Going forward, we’ll use public-rdf-tests@w3.org for most discussions.

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

[1] https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-tests/

> On Sep 4, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> 
> After prodding, I proposed a new “RDF Test Suite Curation” community group [1].
> 
> The purpose of this group is to provide a home for the test suites and implementation reports of various Semantic Web/Linked Data specifications. After the end of a working group, the test suites often become frozen, and it is difficult to add new tests for issues that come to light later on. Similarly, some specs are implemented on a base technology, which eventually evolves (e.g. SPARQL 1.1 and RDF 1.1), and developers need access to updated tests. This group will create a home for forks of the various test suites that would be appropriate to act as a redirect for existing tests. Test updates will be considered based on the consensus of those invested in the related specifications. Implementation reports can be updated as new reports are received, giving implementations visibility.
> Sponsors (1).
> 
> This would be a suitable place for curating both RDF and SPARQL test suites along the lines that Eric suggested. Please consider showing your support.
> 
> Gregg Kellogg
> gregg@greggkellogg.net
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/
> 
>> On Sep 4, 2015, at 6:05 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@W3.ORG> wrote:
>> 
>> * William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> [2015-09-04 12:44+0100]
>>> I agree that long term curation and maintenance of test suites is a
>>> good idea. I wonder if it is wise to rely in the long term on Github
>>> -- who knows how long it will live, it's a private company, etc. It
>>> might be better for the source code repositories to live at the W3C.
>> 
>> I completely agree that this is a valid concearn. Some projects have
>> left sourceforge because of misleading adds. I expect to:
>> 
>> 1 Publish future specs with a tests/implementations reports link to
>> w3.org.
>> 
>> 2 Proxy that link a github.io site (or whatever's in favor at the
>> time) with the expectation that W3 will change that redirect if
>> that sites policies and interface become a problem, or some new
>> site offers better services.
>> 
>> This means we can be held a little bit hostage by inertia and
>> dependency on services, but at least we have control over what happens
>> when someone clicks on the tests or implementation report links in
>> Recommendations. This still leaves the question of who has write keys
>> to that repo.
>> 
>> Some folks have been discussing giving responsibility to the (chair of
>> the) CG. We could reduce the overhead of establishing consensus if we
>> elect one or two folks as editors (Gregg Kellogg already produces the
>> implementation reporets so he's a natural choice) and ask that they
>> not channge tests before hearing back that two implementors agree and
>> no one has objected. If folks object, we dream up more process.
>> 
>> 
>>> -w
>>> 
>>> --
>>> William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>  |  School of Informatics
>>>  http://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/       | University of Edinburgh
>>>        https://hubs.net.uk/             |      HUBS AS60241
>>> 
>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -ericP
>> 
>> office: +1.617.599.3509
>> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
>> 
>> (eric@w3.org)
>> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
>> email address distribution.
>> 
>> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
>> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
>> 
>

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 21:06:59 UTC