RDF output of BC dates seems to not comply with XML schema

[toniher]

Setup and configuration

Tested in sandbox: https://sandbox.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Issue/2233

RDF output: https://sandbox.semantic-mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial:Export_RDF/Issue/2233&syntax=rdf

Issue

Output of XML dates for years in BC era seem not to comply with XML Schema definition:

1.1 Version: https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dateTime (previous definition version was different, though: https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime)

[mwjames]

I have a problem here that might be related to tests definition: https://travis-ci.org/toniher/SemanticMediaWiki/jobs/198528079 Despite I defined on '#3' skip-on virtuoso, it goes through RDF output test anyway: https://github.com/toniher/SemanticMediaWiki/blob/master/tests/phpunit/Integration/JSONScript/TestCases/p-0451.json
Is there any way to fully skip it for Virtuoso?

Yes there is [0], use the meta field to define:

	"meta": {
		"skip-on": {
			"virtuoso": "Virtuoso 6.1 rdfs / subproperty/subcategory hierarchies are not supported"
		},
		"version": "2",
		"is-incomplete": false,
		"debug": false
	}

[0] https://github.com/SemanticMediaWiki/SemanticMediaWiki/blob/master/tests/phpunit/Integration/JSONScript/TestCases/q-0802.json

[mwjames]

Yes there is

... and is now documented [0].

[0] https://github.com/SemanticMediaWiki/SemanticMediaWiki/blob/master/tests/phpunit/Integration/JSONScript/README.md#skipping-a-test-or-mark-as-incomplete

[toniher]

Thanks, sorry for having deleted the original comment. I discovered this option a few moments later and I wrongly decided to remove it. However, it's very good that you saw it and documented it. Travis turned green and I would try a pull request.

[mwjames]

Travis turned green and I would try a pull request.

👍

PS: Don't get discouraged when during the week I'm unable to respond, I pushed my "service" hours to the weekend.

[kghbln]

@toniher @mwjames Is this something to hurry in 2.5 or hurriable for 2.5?

[toniher]

Hi @kghbln, more development and testing is needed (specially for time offsets and for avoiding breaking previous instances). Since no other people are commenting about this, I would not condition 2.5 release because of this...

[kghbln]

@toniher Thanks for the info. So I will move it to 3.0 which does not mean that also a backport to 2.5.x cannot be done at a later stage.