- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 13:57:32 -0500
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jan Grant wrote: > > OK, basically it seems that we ought to do the following (DanC?) > > For each test case (in the form of a piece of RDF)... > > 1. Create serialised RDF as an attachment ("test1.rdf") generally: make it available via HTTP and give it the relevant license and availability/persistence. Sending stuff to this list grants the relevant license (as a consequence of the agreement folks executed when they joined the group; see the charter and W3C process for details). I'd like to say that it assures the relevant persistence, but actually, our list archives have been known to reshuffle the numbers occasionally. Sigh. So... sending stuff as attachments to this list should be sufficient, but I don't think it's strictly necessary; there are perhaps other ways to meet the above constraints. > 2. Create expected output (more below) as an attachment ("test1.out") > these come in pairs. > 3. Where we've got optional behaviour (x MAY do y) provide enumerated > outputs (test1a.out, etc.) Yikes! optional behaviour? I should hope not; I should hope each RDF document means exactly one thing. But I guess we'll figure that out as we go... > Expected output should be a list of triples that describe the expected > output (in the following format) OR just "error" to indicate that the > test case is an example of something that should be non-conforming (or > deprecated?). We have avoided "deprecated" so far (whew!); let's keep it that way as long as we can... I have some comments on the format itself; I think I'll send those separately... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 14:59:38 UTC