- From: Janne Saarela <js@pro-solutions.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:54:53 +0300
- CC: RDF-comment <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi all > I've volunteered to take over as a temporary holding caretaker for > SiRPAC, though am not really the right person to tend to this code. > Janne has I believe another cycle of bugfixes to roll in. After that, we're > looking for one or more volunteers to help.... [hint hint ;-] I managed to find some spare time while working for my new company and now I would very much like to fix some of the reported bugs. Let's see what has been reported and what remains to be done: ------------ 1. incorrect management of rdf:resource="#foo" Reported at [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/1999JulSep/0028.html A solution was suggested at [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/1999JulSep/0031.html I think a better fix can be introduced at the processListItem() routine by checking whether the resource attribute refers actually to another node. By doing this, the example in [1] would effectively give an error "Unresolved reference to #foo1". ------------ 2. incorrect management of typedNodes Reported and and a good fix suggested at [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/1999JulSep/0027.html ------------ 3. incorrect reification of 'subject' Reported at [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/1999JulSep/0026.html Good observation which spans an invalid internal graph. Indeed, the subject needs to remain of type 'Resource'. I believe this is easily fixed new changing new Literal(...) to new Resource(...) on the 'subject' treatment line. The code appearing like: addTriple (new Resource(sNamespace + "subject"), new Resource(sNodeID), new Resource(( subject.toString().length() == 0 ? source() : subject.toString()))); -------------- 4. extra unnamed resource in implicit Descriptions Reported at [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/1999JulSep/0022.html I worked out a solution which was basically caused by not adding the newly created Description node in processPredicate() routine. We could try to pull a release V1.15 based on these fixes but I could try to include some other fixes as well. I guess we could start checking in the patches to dev.w3.org and once we have a testably running version, I could prepare the tar ball. Regards, Janne -- Janne Saarela <js@pro-solutions.com> Pro Solutions Ltd. Phone/Finland: +358 (0)40 508 4767 P.O.Box 34 Phone/France : +33 (0)6.07.45.36.67 FIN-00131 Helsinki Fax : +358 (0)42 508 4767 Finland
Received on Monday, 23 August 1999 11:53:34 UTC