- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:26:10 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:00:59 +0100 Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > > > > > > moreover, > > > [[ > > > I think the test was correct as originally stated and is > > currently incorrect. > > > ]] > > > > > > (I am happy to ignore the procedural issue, really - but I did > > follow the > > > links and was disappointed = i.e. I still can't tell why this test got > > > changed - nor can I tell why I didn't vote against such change) > > > > Brian, please give this an issue number. > > Yes please - I disaagree with this test, which is the substantive issue - an > approved test that disagrees with the Syntax doc. I'm still unsure what you are exactly disagreeing with. Can you say which of the following you mean: 1) The test case file content needs to be changed to fix the test solution: change the content 2) The test is wrong (tests the wrong thing, not testable, ...) solution: delete this test case file. 3) The test case is the wrong type - it should be negative rather than positive, needs renaming solution: rename test case file to negative, adjust manifest 4) The syntax doc needs changing to match the test case solution: change the syntax doc More than one of these may be needed. This same test case is also in another LC issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#krech-01 although that takes the syntax doc as in error; I'm not sure which is wrong now - the test case or the syntax doc. Anyway, I expect a solution here will deal with both of them. > > > > > Jeremy, the misunderstanding arose in the following week's teleconference: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2003/01/17-rdfcore-irc > > > > the exchange recorded (minimally) starting with timestamp 15:28:45 > > > > [[ > > 15:28:45 [daveb-scr] gone some pending test cases > > 15:29:03 [daveb-scr] either we approve them or leave till LC process > > 15:29:07 [daveb-scr] bwm: what are pending? > > 15:29:39 [daveb-scr] bwm: weren't they approved last week > > 15:29:47 [daveb-scr] jang: ok > > 15:29:52 [daveb-scr] bwm: approved, done here > > ]] > > > > > > Pretty minimalist :). Yeah, I scribed and I can't work out what that means :) Dave
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 06:28:42 UTC