W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Test Case Results

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 14:24:07 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <32158.999782647@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Jeremy Carroll said:


> > rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0002.rdf
> ======================================
> Test has typo, last two lines of test0002.nt have subject:
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test02.rdf#bag>
> not the correct
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0002.rdf#ba
> g>

This applies also to 0007.nt and possibly others too.  All the .nt
ntriples results files need to be edited to handle the new URLs.

> > rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0007.rdf
> ======================================
> Test file  rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0007.nt missing triple:
> <http://example.org/resource/> <http://example.org/property> "bar" .

Yes, that is
needs the above triple

> > rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0008.rdf
> ======================================
> This is interesting.
> The URL is
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0008.rdf

test 8 contains an rdf:aboutEachPrefix and is thus now not in the
RDF/XML language.  The file should be renamed as an error case or
removed entirely (it does not test anything else that is not covered
by other cases).

> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0052.html
> Satoshi Nakamura wrote:
> > 4. rdf-ns for 'any' namespace uri.
> >
> > Is that legal that rdf-ns is used for propertyElt or typedNode?
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > <x:foo xmlns:x="http://example.com/">
> >   <rdf:foo xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"/>
> > </x:foo>
> >
> > Does this RDF/XML generate no triples or generate triples below ?
> >
> > <_:genid1> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>
> > <http://example.com/foo> .
> > <_:genid1> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#foo> <_:genid2> .
> >
> > How about using rdf:Description instead of rdf:foo?
> The test has an rdf:aboutEachPrefix, which for ARP is similar to Satoshi's
> rdf:foo.
> ARP behaves in two ways, both different from Dave's test. In default mode,
> it generates triples like above; in strict mode it implements
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#196
> and skips the entire element. (I take the URI in that paragraph to be a
> typo!). In both cases it generates a message.
> I do not believe we have discussed in any depth correct behaviour when
> meeting unrecognised rdf attributes, and I have not seen any discussion
> complaining about Para 196 and so suggest that we retain it. (well not the
> words - just the meaning!).

We have discussed 'illegal' rdf: attributes, elements before.  when I
used similar words to describe what to do when such things were seen,
the WG did not agree, so they were removed.  So as far as I recall we
no just considered such things as having no defined meaning.

At present, since we do not describe what applications do with
RDF/XML (processing model), we cannot give any requirements on what
to do with unknown or undefined tokens.  Since RDF systems are meant
to deal with all sorts of things, they should be used to ignoring
stuff they don't understand, which might be given a meaning by some
system built with RDF.

Thus Satoshi's example above is not disallowed.

Just for fun, here is a wierder one:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
  <rdf:about rdf:Description="literal">
    <rdf:resource rdf:resource="http://example.org/object"/>

_:x <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Description> "literal" .
_:x <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#resource> <http://example.org/object> .
_:x <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#about> .

-- and ARP generated the above triples  (along with a warning)

The paragraph
describes handling 'rdf' things seen from a *different* namespace URI
i.e. not 
where all the commonly-prefixed rdf: things reside.

I don't think any applications ever use anything from the first
namespace so I think we should get rid of this case.


Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 09:24:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC