The group has been set up [1], please join if you’re interested in contributing.
Going forward, we’ll use [email protected] for most discussions. Gregg Kellogg [email protected] [1] https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-tests/ > On Sep 4, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Gregg Kellogg <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > > [1] https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/ > >> On Sep 4, 2015, at 6:05 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> * William Waites <[email protected]> [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 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 <[email protected]> | 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 >> >> ([email protected]) >> 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. >> >
