make progress on test suites to move to CR

[pchampin]

[gkellogg]

Core RDF syntax specs should now have comprehensive tests.

Semantics needs new tests, and links from the specs into the test manifests.

Concepts and Schema do not presently have tests, but could probably reference some N-Triples/N-Quads tests for normative statements.

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #rdf-star meeting on 12 June 2025.

View the transcript

make progress on test suites to move to CR 3

gkellogg: There is a big MR in RDF/XML that needs multiple approvals

AndyS: Talking tests is a way to talk about "what do we need to move to CR"

AndyS: I would like to confirm there is nothing else to do out of the tests

pchampin: Good point, the other important thing is the wide review, we need to coordinate with the W3C

ora: let's confirm that wide review is before CR

AndyS: Reformulated question: is there anything to do before wide review

gkellogg: We have open PRs for VERSION declaration in NTriples and NQuads

AndyS: Hare we aiming at having RDF concepts and NTriples/NQuads CR at the same time

AndyS: If we are aiming for concepts and semantic to go out as a pair, we need NTriples/NQuads out as well

<AndyS> Given needing N-Triples, putting Turtle/TriG into the mix seems natural.

pchampin: I am in favor to have VERSION announcement in NTriples/NQuads as well

ora: It seems there is not much to do

AndyS: Can we minute this statement ^

ora: There is a great deal of interest in RDF 1.2

ora: A question I got is "what does it means for ontology definition"

ora: Any last word?

ora: Thank you for your contributions

AndyS: There is a meeting tomorrow, bumpt to 14:30UTC

AndyS: This is a permanent move

---

[ktk]

To discuss:

What is the goal in regards to normative statements of the spec for tests.

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #rdf-star meeting on 19 June 2025.

View the transcript

w3c/rdf-star-wg#164

<gb> Issue 164 make progress on test suites to move to CR (by pchampin) [needs discussion]

<AndyS> +1

ktk: We can remove 'needs discussion' but should the issue remain open?

AndyS: This was more a placeholder for what we need for CR for the first batch of docs.
… tests is one of the things to do.

ktk: Should we have a discussion what else we need for CR?

gkellogg: Regarding the tests, we need to discuss what type of tests we want. What our goal is.
… with regards to covering all normative statements of the specs.

ora: These two issues seem enough for a meeting.

ktk: I will open another issues to discuss what else is needed for CR.

---