Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Turtle* syntax tests #53

Closed
afs opened this issue Dec 5, 2020 · 10 comments
Closed

Turtle* syntax tests #53

afs opened this issue Dec 5, 2020 · 10 comments
Labels
concrete-syntax About Turtle-star and other concrete syntaxes

Comments

@afs
Copy link
Collaborator

afs commented Dec 5, 2020

This issue is for Turtle* syntax tests.

A first set is provided PR #52.

@lisp
Copy link

lisp commented Dec 5, 2020

have the two modes been ratified - with a distinction in interpretation anchored in the syntax?

@afs
Copy link
Collaborator Author

afs commented Dec 6, 2020

@lisp - they are syntax tests. As per PR, description:

They test whether a parser accepts or rejects a file. There is no implication as what triples are generated which is left for a separate set of tests.

@lisp
Copy link

lisp commented Dec 6, 2020

is the "annotation" syntax being considered for both modes?

@afs
Copy link
Collaborator Author

afs commented Dec 6, 2020

I put annotation examples in for discussion.

I would have thought annotation applied to both SA and PG modes and I see nothing in the discussion to suggest it is anything other than a convenience syntax for :s :p :o. <<:s :p :o>> (it's output is all the SA triples) and neatly collecting the triple term assertions together (the second example shows that for the modelling case of multiple provenance). But no decision.

Indeed, IMO it is one way to resolve the SA/PG choice.

@hartig
Copy link
Collaborator

hartig commented Dec 6, 2020

is the "annotation" syntax being considered for both modes?

No, the way I see it, adding the annotation gives us a way to cover both modes, where the annotation syntax is for PG mode.

By the way, there is a separate issue for the annotation syntax: #9

@hartig
Copy link
Collaborator

hartig commented Dec 6, 2020

have the two modes been ratified - with a distinction in interpretation anchored in the syntax?

That would be my desired outcome. However, nothing has been ratified yet.

@lisp
Copy link

lisp commented Dec 6, 2020

then, the question becomes, is the test suite projective or prescriptive?

@pchampin
Copy link
Collaborator

pchampin commented Dec 8, 2020

the, the question becomes, is are the test suite projective or prescriptive?

The way as see it, nothing is prescriptive at the moment.

@pchampin pchampin added the concrete-syntax About Turtle-star and other concrete syntaxes label Jan 14, 2021
@pchampin
Copy link
Collaborator

@afs should we close this issue? This is not to mean that the corresponding test suite is complete -- in my view, it will always be possible to add new tests. But that's "normal process" and should not require an outstanding issue.

@afs
Copy link
Collaborator Author

afs commented Jan 14, 2021

I agree - the primary version of content is the documents and new issues can be raised for documents.
Closing an issue is not ending discussion.

@afs afs closed this as completed Jan 14, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
concrete-syntax About Turtle-star and other concrete syntaxes
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants