Tests

[mccalluc]

@afred : how does this look to you?

Thoughts about next directions:

• Break it up into smaller pieces:
  • Change the xslt to a pattern matching rather than procedural idiom,
  • split into several files, (will make it a tiny bit more readable)
  • and base the tests on fragments of pbcore documents, rather than the whole thing.
• add ntriples or turtle to fixtures: If a code change makes a difference in behavior, we need to be able to understand that change: rdf xml is not particularly human readable.
• generate pbcore back from the rdf. We need to make sure this is possible. For the fixture, consider checking in a diff between the input and output xml.

[JPEvain]

• Pattern sounds a good idea.
• The use fragments is an option but always comes the time to check that all pieces come together nicely.
• I personally do not agree that RDF/XML is not human readable, I think this is more subjective than objective, but I agree there are different tastes according to developers
• Transformation from and to (next requirement in the list) is probably easier (incl. validation of the results starting with first pass on well-formedness) from RDF/XML than Turtle or nTriple.