- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:13:07 +0100
- To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- cc: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
>>>Jan Grant said: > Bundle of test cases here. This is responding to the mail in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0000.html and attached test cases/results. also refering to Jan's analysis of part of RDF M&S in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0081.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0082.html > test1: empty element with an rdf:resource attribute correct > test2: empty element correct > test3: empty element, "Literal" parseType correct and must be equiv. to test2.rdf/test2.n3 which it is. > test4: empty element, "Resource" parseType. correct > test5: empty element, rdf:ID attribute (produces reification) correct - because of http://ioctl.org/rdf/ms/rdfms#214 NOT http://ioctl.org/rdf/ms/rdfms#229 which is the issue I'm dealing - I'll discuss that in another thread. > test6: empty element, rdf:ID attribute and parseType "Resource". correct > tests 7-12 mirror 1-6, but use explicit closing tags, ie: > <tag></tag> > instead of > <tag/> > > the expected outputs are identical. correct > Finally, the two error cases are empty elements with > parseType="Resource" and an rdf:resource attribute. These should not be > accepted as legal RDF. Actually they are rdf:parseType="Literal" but it doesn't matter since using rdf:parseType with rdf:resource on a propertyElt is already not in the grammar in any part of 6.12. I don't think you are proposing any grammar or meaning changes so don't need failing tests for things that formally were allowed Dave
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 11:13:13 UTC