- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:57:47 +0100 (BST)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>, phayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Brian McBride wrote: > At 10:17 31/05/2002 +0100, Jan Grant wrote: > [...] > > >I can make it as wooly as you like. > > Oh dear, I wasn't trying to be woolly, I was trying to be precise :( > > [...] > > > >The reason for the wording is that the author of a popular parser (that > >is, Dave Beckett) said that he wanted some explicit words in the > >document to tell him exactly what he (as a parser writer) was supposed > >to do to see if his parser agreed with the expected output from the test > >cases. If you want to call that "conformance", fine, I suppose it fits > >that definition. > > Tricky to do norminatively since the specs don't define a processing model. > > The spec could provide guidance though. We don't need a processing model. We just say, if you parse the input document(s), then the result should be isomorphic to the rdf graph described by the ntriples result document. The preamble to the test case descriptions _does_ say that all test case results should be interpreted by a person (ie, that we're not into exhaustive conformance testing). Dave's comment was the only input I received at the time from anyone who is actually writing a parser that's in production use; so I complied with his request. Might I suggest we wait for Jeremy's document describing exactly what we mean by "an RDF graph" and point to that for appropriate definitions of equality/isomorphism/equivalence? It will (I hope) make this clear, accurate, and moot. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk User interface? I hardly know 'er!
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 07:02:47 UTC