W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > February 2006

Re: langMatches wording in sparql query 2005-11-23 and tests [OK?]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:07:25 -0600
To: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1140217645.26363.300.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 23:31 -0800, Dave Beckett wrote:
> The langMatches definition:
[...]
> I think this is backwards, as an example following uses '*' in the
> second argument position, and so do the test cases I was puzzling over -
> q-langMatches-[1-4].rq

quite. fixed in
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#func-langMatches
1.643 of 2006/02/17 23:04:04

Please let us know if this comment addresses your questions to
your satisfaction.

> I'm also unsure about the tests as q-langMatches-3 returns an answer
> with no language but the definition above says * only matches non-empty
> languages. q-langMatch-4 which is the negative of that, is similarly
> affected.

I hope it's OK if I leave your question on the test materials aside,
for now. We'll be going over them in CR.


> The tests also rely that LANG(non-literals) returns "" although it's not
> so explicit in the text to me as LANG() is only defined for literals,
> including in the table "SPARQL Unary Operators".  I was returning a type
> error taking anything not allowed as forbidden.
> 
> Dave
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 17 February 2006 23:07:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT