Confirm organisation of implementation reports

[afs]

From w3c/rdf-concepts#258.

In the RDF 1.1 test cases document, each of the concrete test suites has it's own "/reports" area.

"rdf-tests" is a CG whereas there will be a "maintenance and new features" WG.

Might it be better in each of the document github repos (as is done for, say, JSON-LD)?

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #rdf-star meeting on 15 January 2026.

View the transcript

implementation reports

<ktk> w3c/rdf-star-wg#187

<gb> Issue 187 Confirm organisation of implementation reports (by afs) [ms:CR]

adrian: on organization of implementation report, who should respond to this?

andy: per document or put them into the RDF test repo

andy: I would do "per doc repo"
… so it gets frozen once it is available
… rdf test repo will not have the same state

adrian: makes sense

andy: test suite is currently broken, need to check it can run

adrian: should the tests be next to the docs?

andy: json-ld does "per doc", not sure

adrian: is there a reason against this?

pa: "per doc" makes sense

<niklasl> Yep, JSON-LD has tests in w3c/json-ld-api

pa: json-ld is a bit different

ktk: it seems there is not a consistent way how they publish tests in json-ld 1.1
… we could then consistently put the tests in the git repo

ora: where would people look for tests?
… per doc makes a lot of sense

pa: header has links to test suite and implementation report
… if several specs point to same report, they should find their way

adrian: should we make a comment in the issue to record the decision

pa: I will create a topic in the minutes and cite the minutes in the issue

---