W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: manifests and words for the test cases.

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:04:51 +0200
To: "Jan Grant <Jan.Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFD3755DCE.604912BE-ONC1256B99.003A83CA@agfa.be>


> * "expect the unexpected" is fast becoming my motto :-(


> ** minimalist = test type, status (APPROVED), related issue, input and
>   output files, and an indication if a warning is to be raised.

As Good As Possible

> PS. Current test-case taxonomy:
> positive parser test (input: .rdf file(s); output: .nt file; optionally,
> an indication of a warning)
> negative parser test (input: bad .rdf file)
> positive RDF-entailment test (input: .rdf (or .nt) file(s); output: file
> containing a valid entailment according t the rules of RDF-entailment)
> negative RDF-entailment test (as above, but the entailment does not
> hold)
> ditto the above two test types but using the rules of RDFS-entailment as
> outlined by MT.

indeed, we use the entailment rules per indirection of URI's like


occuring in the subject-list of an entailment statement

( <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test001.nt>
  <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> )
  <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/test004.nt> .

it's just a way to evolve...

> Jos: I think this reflects the full extent of your test cases, or are
> there others? There are no DT-specific tests here.

I'm fine with that Jan, that's what we actually have

Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 07:08:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:11 UTC