- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:43:07 -0500
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jan Grant wrote: > > (Don't have an id for this yet) > > Re: Brian's test cases at: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/ I haven't looked at all of them in detail, but I see several that look broken to me. Is there some explanation for the design that results in these results? I don't see it at a glance. > > Test 1: fine (although a note that ntriples definition needs expanding > to include "\n" and "\r" in WS) please, no. keep each triple on one line. > Test 2: yes. yes. > Test 3: yes, although this is simpler than test 2 (and subsumed there?). > Suggest you change foo:Bar in test 2 to a normal bag. hmm... having rdf:li turn into rdf:_nn outside of rdf:Bag/Alt/Seq looks like a design change, to me. It's interesting, but can we reasonable expect implementors to have gotten that from the original spec? > Test 4: yes (with a lamentation about the last alternative of production > 6.12 again) > > Test 5: ye-e-es*. I'm not going to quibble about this because it's truly > a corner case. This looks broken to me. > > Test 6: yes. (the last case is horrific though :-) ) > > Test 7: yes. > > Test 8: yes. > > Error case 1: yep. Really? "rdf:li is not allowed as as an attribute" Why not? > All looks fine to me (with provisos noted above). > > jan > > PS. "Overview.html" needs turning on for the whole world to see > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 16:43:19 UTC