- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:11:18 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Dave Beckett <dave.beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>At 00:04 06/04/2002 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
>
>>I've created 2 test cases for this issue
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-abouteach
>>
>>below
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-abouteach/
>>
>>They test failure for
>>
>> error001.rdf rdf:aboutEach
>> error002.rdf rdf:aboutEachPrefix
>
>These look good to me Dave. The only nit I have is the use of the dc as
it
>makes the test a little more complex and doesn't seem necessary.
>
>Please can someone else look these over and we will aim to approve this
week.
well, I was looking for (but didn't find) the .nt files
one could of course argue here, but there are certainly triples
in those files, and I think we should say which ones
no? Jan?
I think for error001.nt there are 2 triples
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-abouteach/error001.rdf#node>
<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>
<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag> .
<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-abouteach/error001.rdf#node>
<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1>
<http://example.org/node2> .
(remark the .rdf which is OK, but maybe avoid extensions)
and for error002.nt only 1 triple
<http://example.org/node> <http://example.org/property> "foo" .
--
Jos
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 09:13:19 UTC