Abstract
This document describes the RDF Test Cases deliverable for the
RDF Core Working
Group as defined in the WG's Charter.
Status of this Document
This section describes the status of this document at the
time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this
document. The latest status of this document series is maintained
at the W3C.
This is a W3C
Last Call Working Draft of the RDF Core Working
Group and has been produced as part of the W3C Semantic Web Activity (Activity
Statement).
This document is in the Last Call review period, which ends on
21 February 2003. This document has been endorsed by the RDF Core
Working Group.
This version includes the N-Triples
language definition. The working group has approved the remaining
test cases. The test case repository will be updated in the light
of feedback from this draft. Detailed changes are recorded in Appendix A: ChangeLog.
This document is being released for review by W3C Members and
other interested parties to encourage feedback and comments,
especially with regard to how the changes made affect existing
implementations and content.
In conformance with W3C
policy requirements, known patent and IPR constraints
associated with this Working Draft are detailed on the RDF Core Working Group Patent Disclosure
page.
Comments on this document are invited and should be sent to the
public mailing list www-rdf-comments@w3.org.
An archive of comments is available at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/.
This is a public W3C Last Call Working Draft for review by W3C
Members and other interested parties. This section describes the
status of this document at the time of its publication. It is a
draft document and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Working
Drafts as reference material or to cite as other than "work in
progress". A list of current W3C Recommendations and other
technical documents can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
One of the deliverables specified in Charter of
the RDF Core Working
Group is: a set of machine-processable test
cases corresponding to technical issues addressed by the
WG. This document describes the test cases that fulfill that
deliverable but it does not contain the test cases themselves. The
test cases are available at http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/.
The RDF Interest
Group and other members of the RDF community have identified
issues/ambiguities in the [RDFMS] Specification and the [RDF-SCHEMA] Candidate Recommendation.
These issues have been collected and categorized in the RDF Core WG Issue
Tracking document. The RDF Core Working Group uses this issue
list to guide its work. The issues list is a working document; it
is updated as new issues are identified. It is updated as the
Working Group makes decisions as documented in the Attention
Developers section of the document.
The complete specification of RDF consists of a number of
documents:
1.1. Scope
A comprehensive and complete test suite for RDF should cover all
of the rules in the Formal Grammar
for RDF. The Working Group, however, is not chartered to
deliver such a test suite but rather to create test cases for the
issues the Working Group addresses (when applicable). Although the
Working Group will not create test cases for some grammar rules
(e.g. rule [6.1]), if such test cases are donated to the W3C the
Consortium may add such test cases to this set of test cases.
1.2. RDF
Errata
The RDF
Errata documents known errors in [RDFMS]. Since errata are considered
normative changes to a W3C Specification and Working Group
decisions are not normative until a specification is a W3C
Recommendation, none of the decisions made by the RDF Core Working
Group have (to date) been reflected in the errata.
The Test Case Repository is located at http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/.
Each directory in the repository is devoted to a single issue. Most
directories have a name that is identical to the related issue in
the RDF Issue
Tracking document. For example, the directory
rdf-ns-prefix-confusion is identical to the
rdf-ns-prefix-confusion issue. In the other cases, the
directory does not have an associated issue in the issue list (e.g.
amp-in-url).
If a directory is empty, then no test cases have been created for
the issue.
The Test
Case Repository contains ZIP files of all Approved test
cases in
approved_20030117.zip (
latest version) as well as Zip files of all Approved and
Not Approved test cases in
all_20030117.zip (latest
version).
The file http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/Manifest.rdf
contains a machine-readable manifest of the test cases. The
Manifest.rdf format is described below.
The file http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/Manifest.rdf
contains a machine-readable description of the test cases in
RDF/XML. Care has been taken to ensure that the Manifest.rdf file
follows a simple format to assist in machine-processing the test
cases.
The file consists of a simple header (see
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/skeleton/manifestHead.rdf),
individual descriptions of the test cases, and a closing footer (
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/skeleton/manifestTail.rdf).
The test cases are divided into the following categories:
- Positive Parser Tests
-
these tests consist of one (or more) input documents in RDF/XML
as is revised in [RDF-SYNTAX]. The expected result
is defined using the N-Triples syntax
(Section 3). A parser is considered to pass the test if it
produces a graph
equal to the graph described by the N-triples output
document, according to
the definition of graph equality given in [RDF-CONCEPTS]. Where the
input document(s) are legal RDF/XML, but a warning may be
generated, this is indicated in the test manifest.
<test:PositiveParserTest rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/test001">
<test:issue rdf:resource="http://w3.example.org/rdf-tracking/#example1" />
<test:status>APPROVED</test:status>
<test:approval rdf:resource="http://rdfcore.example.org/archives/001.html" />
<test:description>
This is a simple positive parser test example.
</test:description>
<test:inputDocument>
<test:RDF-XML-Document rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/test001.rdf" />
</test:inputDocument>
<test:outputDocument>
<test:NT-Document rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/test001.nt" />
</test:outputDocument>
<test:warning>Some parsers may produce a warning when running this test</test:warning>
</test:PositiveParserTest>
- Negative Parser Tests
-
These tests consist of one input document. The document is not
legal RDF/XML. A parser is considered to pass the test if it
correctly holds the input document to be in error.
<test:NegativeParserTest rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/error001">
<test:issue rdf:resource="http://w3.example.org/rdf-tracking/#example1" />
<test:status>APPROVED</test:status>
<test:inputDocument>
<test:RDF-XML-Document rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/error001.rdf" />
</test:inputDocument>
</test:NegativeParserTest>
- Positive Entailment Tests
-
These tests are specified by one or more premise documents (in
RDF/XML or N-Triples) together with a single conclusion
document. In addition, the rules used for determining
entailment are specified by test:entailmentRules elements. If
the following is present
<test:entailmentRules rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" />
then the test succeeds if the entailment holds according to the
rules of RDF-entailment as specified in [RDF-SEMANTICS]. If the following
two elements are present
<test:entailmentRules rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" />
<test:entailmentRules rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" />
then the test succeeds if the entailment holds according to the
rules of RDFS-entailment as specified in [RDF-SEMANTICS].
<test:PositiveEntailmentTest rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/rdfs-domain-and-range/conjunction-test">
<test:description>
This test demonstrates the conjunctive nature of range and domain.
</test:description>
<test:entailmentRules rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" />
<test:entailmentRules rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" />
<test:premiseDocument>
<test:NT-Document rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/rdfs-domain-and-range/test001.nt" />
</test:premiseDocument>
<test:premiseDocument>
<test:NT-Document rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/rdfs-domain-and-range/test002.nt" />
</test:premiseDocument>
<test:premiseDocument>
<test:NT-Document rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/rdfs-domain-and-range/test003.nt" />
</test:premiseDocument>
<test:conclusionDocument>
<test:NT-Document rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/rdfs-domain-and-range/test004.nt" />
</test:conclusionDocument>
</test:PositiveEntailmentTest>
According to [RDF-SEMANTICS], a premise document
that contains a semantic error with respect to any constraints
imposed by the entailment rules selected will come out false
(and hence entail anything).
Support for such situations is provided by the manifest
format by declaring an premise or conclusion pseudo-document as
follows:
<test:conclusionDocument>
<test:False-Document/>
</test:conclusionDocument>
By convention, such a pseudo-document is said to come out
false under any interpretation.
- Negative Entailment Tests
-
These tests are specified using a similar structure to the
Positive Entailment Tests, with the
<test:NegativeEntailmentTest> element used instead of the
<test:PositiveEntailmentTest>. The test is considered to
be passed if the entailment indicated is NOT drawn using the
rules of RDF-Entailment or RDFS-entailment, as above.
<test:NegativeEntailmentTest rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/statement-entailment/test001">
<test:status>PENDING</test:status>
<test:approval rdf:resource="http://rdfcore.example.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html" />
<test:description>
RDF Core WG RESOLVED that a reified statement was a stating, not a statement.
The following entailment does not, therefore, hold.
</test:description>
<test:entailmentRules rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" />
<test:entailmentRules rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" />
<test:premiseDocument>
<test:NT-Document rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/statement-entailment/test001a.nt" />
</test:premiseDocument>
<test:conclusionDocument>
<test:NT-Document rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/statement-entailment/test001b.nt" />
</test:conclusionDocument>
</test:NegativeEntailmentTest>
- Datatype-aware entailment tests
-
Entailment test cases may, in addition, require datatype
support. Such a requirement is indicated in the manifest by the
presence of the following test:entailmentRules element,
followed by zero or more test:datatypeSupport entries.
<test:entailmentRules rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes#" />
<test:datatypeSupport rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer" />
<test:datatypeSupport rdf:resource="http://dt.example.org/datatype#foo" />
For the purposes of the test suite, if a test case requires
datatype support for a set of datatypes, { T,
U, V, ... } then the following three pieces of
machinery are required:
- for any datatyped literal of the form
"aaa"^^<T> where T is
a supported datatype, it must be possible to determine if
aaa is a valid lexical form for that datatype;
and
- for any two datatyped literals of the form
"aaa"^^<T> and
"bbb"^^<U> with aaa
and bbb valid lexical forms of the supported
datatypes T and U respectively, it must be
possible to determine if those two literals denote the same
value. (Note that determining what that value is is
not explicitly required.) Finally,
- for any datatyped literal of the form
"aaa"^^<T> where T is
a supported datatype, and for some supported datatype
U, it must be possible to determine if the value
denoted by the literal is or is not a member of the value
space of U. (This last condition is required to
support the checking of range clashes.)
- Miscellaneous Tests
-
This manifest entry is used to describe test cases that do not
fall into one of the earlier categories. It may have several
associated files, indicated in <test:document> elements.
<test:MiscellaneousTest rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/misc001">
<test:status>PENDING</test:status>
<test:description>
A serializer asked to output the graph described in the test001
document should raise an exception since it cannot be described using
RDF/XML.
</test:description>
<test:document>
<test:NT-Document rdf:about="http://w3.example.org/nonserializable/test001.nt" />
</test:document>
</test:MiscellaneousTest>
In addition, each test case description may have the following
common attributes:
-
The test:issue element contains a pointer to the
associated issue on the RDF Core WG
Tracking document. It may appear zero or more times.
<test:issue rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf" />
-
The test:status element, if present, indicates the
status of the test according to RDF Core WG process. Only test
descriptions containing the following should be considered to
be approved by WG.
<test:status>APPROVED</test:status>
-
The test:approval element, if present, contains a
reference to the minutes of the RDF Core WG meeting where the
test case status was last changed.
<test:approval rdf:resource="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html" />
-
The test:discussion element, if present, contains a
pointer to other discussion surrounding this test case or the
associated issue. This element may appear multiple times.
<test:discussion rdf:resource="http://rdfcore.example.org/" />
-
The test:description element, if present, contains a
human-readable summary of the test case.
<test:description>
Text describing the test case goes here.
</test:description>
-
The test:warning element, if present, indicates that
while the test should pass, it may generate a warning. The
contents of the element provide a human-readable description of
the warning.
<test:warning> Text describing the warning goes here. </test:warning>
The test cases in the following table have been approved.
The test case repository contains test cases that have not been
approved. Such test cases are not enumerated in this document but a
list of them is available at
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/allTestCases.html.
The test case manifest format was deliberately chosen to be a
simple, declarative description of the test cases. Parser tests can
be run in conjunction with simple tools such as ntc[NTC]. A parser should pass all the
positive parser tests, and reject all the negative parser tests.
Tools like Euler have
been used to run the entailment tests.
Due to the rules of entailment tests, a positive or negative
entailment test case with an empty conclusion document can be used
to illustrate semantic constraints associated with sets of
entailment rules.
The test cases have been created to illustrate the resolution of
particular issues on the RDF Issue
Tracking list. Consequently, test case results should always be
interpreted in conjunction with the resolution of the associated
issue and the description (if any) attached to the test case in the
manifest.
N-Triples is a line-based, plain text format for encoding an RDF
graph. It was designed to be a fixed subset of N3[N3] [N3-Primer] and hence N3 tools such as
cwm, n-triples2kif.pl
and Euler can be used
to read and process it. cwm can output this format when invoked as
"cwm -ntriples".
It is recommended, but not required, that N-Triples content is
stored in files with an '.nt' suffix to distinguish them from
N3.
The Internet Media Type / MIME Type of N-Triples is text/plain
and the character encoding is 7-bit US-ASCII.
NOTE: N-Triples is an RDF syntax intended for
RDF Core WG testing purposes and checking RDF applications for
conformance with the specifications. The recommended RDF exchange
syntax is RDF/XML as defined in [RDF-SYNTAX].
An N-Triples document is a sequence of US-ASCII characters and
is defined by the ntripleDoc grammar term
below. Parsing it results in a sequence of RDF statements formed
from the subject, predicate and object
terms. The meaning of these terms are defined in the [RDF-SEMANTICS] being developed as part
of the RDF Core WG
activity.
This EBNF is the notation used
in XML 1.0 second edition
N-Triples strings are sequences of US-ASCII character productions encoding [UNICODE] character
strings. The characters outside the US-ASCII range are made
available by \-escape sequences as follows:
Escape
sequence |
Encodes Unicode character |
| \\ |
Backslash character (decimal 92, #X5C) |
| \" |
Double quote (decimal 34, #x22) |
| \n |
Line feed (decimal 10, #xA) - lf
character |
| \r |
Carriage return (decimal 13, #xD) - cr
character |
| \t |
Horizontal tab (decimal 9, #x9) - tab
character |
| \uHHHH |
4 required hexadecimal digits HHHH encoding
character
[#x0-#x8],[#xB-#xC],[#xE-#x1F],[#x7F-#xFFFF] |
| \UHHHHHHHH |
8 required hexadecimal digits HHHHHHHH encoding
character
[#x10000-#x10FFFF] |
where H is a hexadecimal digit:
[#x30-#x39],[#x41-#x46] (0-9, uppercase A-F).
This escaping satisfies the [CHARMOD] section Reference
Processing Model on making the full Unicode character range U+0
to U+10FFFF available to applications and providing only one way to
escape any character.
URI references are sequences of US-ASCII character productions
as defined in [RFC 2396]
for a URI character sequence. Where the original URI Reference
contains characters not allowed in such a sequence, the standard
escaping procedure described in [RFC
2396] using UTF-8 as the character encoding is applied,
using UTF-8 as the character encoding.
Disallowed characters are represented in UTF-8 and then encoded
using the %HH format, where HH is the byte value expressed using
hexadecimal notation.
Characters above the US-ASCII range are made available by the \u
or \U escapes as described in section Strings for ranges [#x80-#xFFFF] and
[#x10000-#x10FFFF] respectively.
Characters [#x0-#x1F] and #x7F are forbidden in URI
references.
The following N-Triples file:
<http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator> "Dave Beckett" .
<http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator> "Jan Grant" .
<http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/publisher> _:a .
_:a <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> "World Wide Web Consortium" .
_:a <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> <http://www.w3.org/> .
represents the same RDF graph as the following RDF/XML:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/">
<dc:creator>Jan Grant</dc:creator>
<dc:creator>Dave Beckett</dc:creator>
<dc:publisher>
<rdf:Description>
<dc:title>World Wide Web Consortium</dc:title>
<dc:source rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/"/>
</rdf:Description>
</dc:publisher>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
The N-Triple test file at
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt
contains multiple tests of legal N-Triples.
- [RDFMS]
- Resource
Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax
Specification, O. Lassila and R. Swick, Editors, World
Wide Web Consortium Recommendation. 22 February 1999. This
version is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/.
The latest version
of RDF M&S is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/.
- [RDF-SCHEMA]
- Resource
Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0,
Dan Brickley, R.V. Guha, Editors, World Wide Web Consortium
Candidate Recommendation, 27 March 2000. This version is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/. The latest version of RDF
Schema is http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.
- [UNICODE]
- The Unicode Standard, Version
3.0, Addison Wesley, Reading MA, 2000, ISBN: 0-201-61633-5.
This document is
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/standard.html.
- [CHARMOD]
- Character
Model for the World Wide Web 1.0, M. Dürst, F.
Yergeau, R. Ishida, M. Wolf, A. Freytag, T Texin, Editors, World
Wide Web Consortium Working Draft, work in progress, 30 April
2002. This version of the Character Model is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/. The latest version of the
Character Model is at http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/.
- [RDF-CONCEPTS]
- RDF
Concepts and Abstract Syntax, G. Klyne, J. Carroll,
Editors, World Wide Web Consortium W3C Working Draft, work in
progress, 8 November 2002. This version of the RDF Concepts and
Abstract Syntax is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/. The latest version of the
RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/.
- [RDF-SEMANTICS]
- RDF Model
Theory, P. Hayes, Editor. World Wide Web Consortium,
Working Draft, 29 April 2002. Work in progress. This version of
the RDF Model Theory is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020429/. The latest version of the RDF
Model Theory is at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/.
- [RDF-SYNTAX]
- RDF/XML
Syntax Specification (Revised), Dave Beckett, Editor,
World Wide Web Consortium, Working Draft, 8 November 2002. Work
in progress. This version of the RDF/XML Syntax is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20021108/. The latest version of
the RDF/XML Syntax is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/.
- [RFC 2396]
- RFC
2396 - Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
Syntax, T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding and L. Masinter,
IETF, August 1998. This document is
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt.
- [RFC 3066]
- RFC 3066
- Tags for the Identification of Languages, H.
Alvestrand, IETF, January 2001. This document is
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt
- [RDF-PRIMER]
- RDF
Primer, F. Manola, E. Miller, Editors, World Wide Web
Consortium W3C Working Draft, work in progress, 26 April 2002.
This version of the RDF Primer is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-primer-20020426/. The latest version of the RDF
Primer is at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/.
- [RDF-VOCABULARY]
- RDF
Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, D.
Brickley, R.V. Guha, Editors, World Wide Web Consortium W3C
Working Draft, work in progress, 30 April 2002. This version of
the RDF Vocabulary Description Language is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20020430/. The latest version of the RDF
Vocabulary Description Language is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.
- [N3]
- Notation
3, Tim Berners-Lee
- [N3-Primer]
- Primer: Getting
into RDF & Semantic Web using N3, Tim
Berners-Lee
- [NTC]
- NTC:
A simple N-Triples isomorphism test utility, Jan
Grant
Many thanks to Art Barstow (ex-W3C), former main editor of this
document, for his sterling work on editing and managing the RDF
test cases, which he had been doing well before the RDF Core WG
started.
The editors would also like to thank Jos DeRoo, of AGFA, for his
excellent work in the implementation of an RDF reasoner capable of
running the entailment test cases.
Thanks are also due to the RDF parser implementers who took the
time to run, and submit corrections to, our parser tests.
The following Working Group members have directly contributed to
this document and/or contributed test cases.
- Art Barstow, ex-W3C Fellow
- Jeremy Carroll, HP Labs Bristol
- Dan Connolly, W3C
- Jos DeRoo, AGFA
- Graham Klyne, Clearswift and Nine by Nine
- Brian McBride, HP Labs Bristol
- Aaron Swartz, HWG
This document is a product of extended deliberations by the RDF
Core working group, whose members have included: Art Barstow (W3C)
Dave Beckett (ILRT), Dan Brickley (W3C/ILRT), Dan Connolly (W3C),
Jeremy Carroll (Hewlett Packard), Ron Daniel (Interwoven Inc), Bill
dehOra (InterX), Jos De Roo (AGFA), Jan Grant (ILRT), Graham Klyne
(Clearswift and Nine by Nine), Frank Manola (MITRE Corporation),
Brian McBride (Hewlett Packard), Eric Miller (W3C), Stephen
Petschulat (IBM), Patrick Stickler (Nokia), Aaron Swartz (HWG),
Mike Dean (BBN Technologies / Verizon), R. V. Guha (Alpiri Inc),
Pat Hayes (IHMC), Sergey Melnik (Stanford University), Martyn
Horner (Profium Ltd).
This specification also draws upon an earlier RDF Model and
Syntax document edited by Ora Lassilla and Ralph Swick, and RDF
Schema edited by Dan Brickley and R. V. Guha. RDF and RDF Schema
Working group members who contributed to this earlier work are:
Nick Arnett (Verity), Tim Berners-Lee (W3C), Tim Bray (Textuality),
Dan Brickley (ILRT / University of Bristol), Walter Chang (Adobe),
Sailesh Chutani (Oracle), Dan Connolly (W3C), Ron Daniel
(DATAFUSION), Charles Frankston (Microsoft), Patrick Gannon
(CommerceNet), RV Guha (Epinions, previously of Netscape
Communications), Tom Hill (Apple Computer), Arthur van Hoff
(Marimba), Renato Iannella (DSTC), Sandeep Jain (Oracle), Kevin
Jones, (InterMind), Emiko Kezuka (Digital Vision Laboratories), Joe
Lapp (webMethods Inc.), Ora Lassila (Nokia Research Center), Andrew
Layman (Microsoft), Ralph LeVan (OCLC), John McCarthy (Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory), Chris McConnell (Microsoft), Murray
Maloney (Grif), Michael Mealling (Network Solutions), Norbert
Mikula (DataChannel), Eric Miller (OCLC), Jim Miller (W3C,
emeritus), Frank Olken (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory),
Jean Paoli (Microsoft), Sri Raghavan (Digital/Compaq), Lisa Rein
(webMethods Inc.), Paul Resnick (University of Michigan), Bill
Roberts (KnowledgeCite), Tsuyoshi Sakata (Digital Vision
Laboratories), Bob Schloss (IBM), Leon Shklar (Pencom Web Works),
David Singer (IBM), Wei (William) Song (SISU), Neel Sundaresan
(IBM), Ralph Swick (W3C), Naohiko Uramoto (IBM), Charles Wicksteed
(Reuters Ltd.), Misha Wolf (Reuters Ltd.), Lauren Wood
(SoftQuad).
Entailment test definitions changed to actually test proper
entailments, not pseudo-entailments.
Support for datatype-aware entailment tests in the manifest.
Pointer to RDF-CONCEPTS for the definition of graph isomorphism
/ equality.
Addition of the always false pseudo-document for
entailment tests.
Updated the test case list in this document.
Test case names changed to fragment references into individual
manifest documents.
Production language. Changed to match
RFC 3066. Added [RFC 2396]
to normative references.
3 N-Triples NOTE reworded. Point to
RDF/XML as exchange syntax.
Production character: should be "to
126"
3.2 Strings Removed suggestion to
use UTF-8 for apps.
Added 3.5. N-Triples Tests pointing
at the
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt
test file.
Use uppercase hexadecimal digits. Define H and use it for \uHHHH, \uHHHHHHHH.
Removed xmlString.
Changed the N-Triples language separator token to @ in langString
Added RDF datatyping support using datatypeString using the form
^^<datatypeURI>
Updated 3.3 URI References to
allow Unicode characters in URIs
Merged Future Work into Open Issues
Test case list expanded and reorganized to reflect additional
approved test cases
New section 2 describing organization
of parser tests, the types of tests and examples of manifest format
that describes them.
Updated editors, added thanks to Art Barstow.
Changed literal to be langString |
xmlString (now gone)
N-Triples remains an ASCII format for now - closed issue on
UTF-8 encoding.
Update references to RDF Model Theory, Syntax WDs
Changed the Approved Test Cases table so
that it includes links to related files and the Working Group
decision.
Removed the Test Cases Not Approved
table and added a link to the repository's list of the not approved
test cases.
Added links to ZIP files of the repository's test cases.
Specify the Future Work and Contributors sections as Informative.
Renamed token bNode to nodeID.
Added RDF Model Theory reference.
Added URI Encoding section, pointing at Charmod rules and
updated absoluteURI grammar rule to use it.
Removed references to Python literals, reason for
\-escaping.
Added 4, 8 required digits for \u, \U string escapes.
Renamed section URIs to URI References.