> On Sep 6, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Tim Berners-Lee <ti...@w3.org> wrote: > > Gregg > > Excellent! Thank you for taking this on. > Also having a consistently maintained set of tests should make it much easier > to build regression tests for things like rdflib.js. > > In its day cwm (now https://github.com/linkeddata/swap ) had a pretty large > array of tests for the parers and serializers and inference engines but it > has not been maintained recently.
We could certainly move cwm tests into the repository too. The repository has been set up, with a direct view suitable for pointing a test runner at here: http://w3c.github.io/rdf-tests/. Issues and pull requests can be made at https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests, with primary discussion in GitHub issues and public-rdf-te...@w3.org. > rdllib.js ( https://github.com/linkeddata/rdflib.js )has a limited number of > tests at the moment, but we at CSAIL are hiring a couples of developers > (http://crosscloud.org/jobs) and with that and community input and hopefully > that may improve. > > These sorts of projects take for granted solid capacity to deal with the > basic RDF languages and good tests suites are a bit part of that I’m happy to do my part to help out. Gregg > Tim > > On 2015-09 -04, at 17:08, Gregg Kellogg <gr...@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > >> After prodding, I proposed a new “RDF Test Suite Curation” community group >> [1]. >> >> The purpose of this group is to provide a home for the test suites and >> implementation reports of various Semantic Web/Linked Data specifications. >> After the end of a working group, the test suites often become frozen, and >> it is difficult to add new tests for issues that come to light later on. >> Similarly, some specs are implemented on a base technology, which eventually >> evolves (e.g. SPARQL 1.1 and RDF 1.1), and developers need access to updated >> tests. This group will create a home for forks of the various test suites >> that would be appropriate to act as a redirect for existing tests. Test >> updates will be considered based on the consensus of those invested in the >> related specifications. Implementation reports can be updated as new reports >> are received, giving implementations visibility. >> Sponsors (1). >> >> This would be a suitable place for curating both RDF and SPARQL test suites >> along the lines that Eric suggested. Please consider showing your support. >> >> Gregg Kellogg >> gr...@greggkellogg.net >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/ >> >>> On Sep 4, 2015, at 6:05 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <e...@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> * William Waites <wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> [2015-09-04 12:44+0100] >>>> I agree that long term curation and maintenance of test suites is a >>>> good idea. I wonder if it is wise to rely in the long term on Github >>>> -- who knows how long it will live, it's a private company, etc. It >>>> might be better for the source code repositories to live at the W3C. > > I agree completely and would encourage people to track git-based projects > on > >>> >>> I completely agree that this is a valid concearn. Some projects have >>> left sourceforge because of misleading adds. I expect to: >>> >>> 1 Publish future specs with a tests/implementations reports link to >>> w3.org. >>> >>> 2 Proxy that link a github.io site (or whatever's in favor at the >>> time) with the expectation that W3 will change that redirect if >>> that sites policies and interface become a problem, or some new >>> site offers better services. >>> >>> This means we can be held a little bit hostage by inertia and >>> dependency on services, but at least we have control over what happens >>> when someone clicks on the tests or implementation report links in >>> Recommendations. This still leaves the question of who has write keys >>> to that repo. >>> >>> Some folks have been discussing giving responsibility to the (chair of >>> the) CG. We could reduce the overhead of establishing consensus if we >>> elect one or two folks as editors (Gregg Kellogg already produces the >>> implementation reporets so he's a natural choice) and ask that they >>> not channge tests before hearing back that two implementors agree and >>> no one has objected. If folks object, we dream up more process. >>> >>> >>>> -w >>>> >>>> -- >>>> William Waites <wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> | School of Informatics >>>> http://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/ | University of Edinburgh >>>> https://hubs.net.uk/ | HUBS AS60241 >>>> >>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> -ericP >>> >>> office: +1.617.599.3509 >>> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59 >>> >>> (e...@w3.org) >>> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than >>> email address distribution. >>> >>> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout >>> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper. >>> >> >> >> >
