- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:43:33 +0100 (BST)
- To: Arjohn Kampman <arjohn.kampman@aidministrator.nl>
- cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Arjohn Kampman wrote: > Jan Grant wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Arjohn Kampman wrote: > > > > > >>My question concerns the given output files for two (approved) tests > >>from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ , namely tests 4 and 6 of > >>rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema. > >> > >>In the document it is suggested that all relative URIs should be > >>resolved against the base URI > >> > >> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ > >> > >>but the expected output that is given for the two mentioned test cases > >>looks to have been resolved against the actual URL of the test case. Is > >>this an error in the document? > > > > > > This is an error in the document. Test cases are being revised to > > include xml base where appropriate. > > I think I've found another error in test 4 of > rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema which isn't related to the xml base > issue. > > According to the latest revised syntax specification, the rdf:ID="e4" > attribute of the last list item indicates that the concerned statement > should be reified. However, in the accompanying output file the value > "e4" is used to name the object of this statement, like it was defined > in the specification of 18 December 2001. > > I think the last two lines of the output file should be replaced with > the following 6 lines: > > _:bar <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_4> _:res2. > > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/#e4> > <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> > <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Statement>. > > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/#e4> > <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#subject> _:bar. > > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/#e4> > <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#predicate> > <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_4>. > > <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/#e4> > <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#object> _:res2. > > _:res2 <http://foo/bar> "foobar". > > > Is this correct? Looking at the appropriate production rules (editor's working draft at http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#emptyPropertyElt ), my reading is that you are correct. I'll confirm this with Dave Beckett - if he agrees, I'll modify the test case. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ I'm the dandy information superhighwayman.
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 08:45:52 UTC