- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:57:03 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Thanks Dave. So over to you now Jos and maybe we can put this one to bed before Friday :) Brian Dave Beckett wrote: > > >>>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 13:58:05 UTC