- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:09:45 -0500 (EST)
- To: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-calendar@w3.org
Hi, it seems that the tricky thing is testing whether the tools are doing the right one-way conversion (I have found a bunch of things that don't get done in toIcal.py but it isn't obvious from the test harness that we have which only checks that the RDF round trip is fine). Either we need to be able to compare iCal to RDF graphs, or do a two-step and check the ical-rdf-ical round trip as well as the rdf-ical-rdf round trip to identify which step is missing. cheers Chaals On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Libby Miller wrote: >hi Dan. > >This makes sense to me. I started to do it with the java version[1] - >now out of date - although I didn't have proper graph compare tools to >use so I just compared the number of triples. I guess cwm can do this. > >My problem was having a sensible place to put the ones to test against >and the newly generated ones. Just needs a bit of thought probably. > >Libby > >[1] http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2003/02/cal/mimedir-parser/Makefile > > >On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Dan Connolly wrote: > >> >> As my rewrite of ical2rdf.pl in python started to work, >> I realized that before I get into round-trip testing, >> I want to do conversion testing, where we compare >> the results of running a conversion with expected results... >> something like... >> >> fromIcal.py test/cal01.ics > ,temp/cal01.rdf >> graphCompare test/cal01.rdf ,temp/cal01.rdf >> >> I guess it's sort of an obvious idea that I skipped over >> in our discussions so far. >> >> I haven't built a test harness yet. I'll let you know >> when/if I do. Anybody who beats me to it gets a gold star ;-) >> >> Meanwhile... any feedback on the idea?
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2004 18:09:46 UTC