Re: Wrong test-case: rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr/test003

Sorry Dave, I am having difficulty reconciling what you say here, with your 
message to Jan on the comments list.

I had given him a zip of the current W3C CVS, and I believe he had picked 
up the change you made (on Friday?) to make the object a literal not a 
blank node.

My understanding of the approved test is that the object is a blank node, 
and that there are no literals in this test case.

If this differs from yours we need to discuss it.

In particular I disagree with:
[[

Revision : 1.2
Date : 2002/12/18 11:31:28
Author : 'jgrant'
State : 'Exp'
Lines : +2 -2
Description :
Raptor fix: this now gives an empty literal, not a bnode.
]]

Revision 1.1 was correct and did not fixing.

Jeremy

Dave Beckett wrote:

> We just had a comment on this test case on the rdf comments list:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0043.html
> and this means an approved test case needs to be corrected to match
> the rdf/xml grammar.
> 
> This result:
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr/test003.nt
> 
> needs the following change:
> 
> 15c15
> < _:j88096 <http://example.org/prop1> "" .
> ---
> 
>>_:j88096 <http://example.org/prop1> :j88097 .
>>
> 
> to match http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#emptyPropertyElt
> where when both rdf:ID and rdf:bagID are both present, the statement
> value is a blank node (the "Otherwise" clause) not an empty literal.
> 
> The good news:
> 
> [[P.s. Using SWI-Prolog from the CVS snapshot it processes the rest of
>  the test-suite properly now.]]
> 
> So that makes nearly 4 full implementations of the parser test cases
> (detailed evidence for this will have to be collected).
> 
> Dave
> 
>

Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 13:04:39 UTC