W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases

From: Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:45:41 -0700
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC789F11.15EE0%rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
Hi Axel

Yes this answers my specific question but I still think it may be worth the
group adding some clarifying text to the specification to make the
distinction clear

Rob

From:  "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date:  Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:01 PM
To:  Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org"
<public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Subject:  RE: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases

> Hi Rob,
>  
> (note that this is not a formal reply, but just quickly:)
>  
>> > 2  The restriction does not apply to updates
>  
> holds.
>  
> SPARQL1.0 forbade (and SPARQL1.1 still forbids this blank nodes to be shared
> across BGPs, cf. 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#grammarBNodeLabels
>  
> The group didn't see a reason to put this restriction on QuadPatterns in the
> head of DELETE/INSERT statements in Update (which are different from BGPs in
> the WHERE clause).
>  
> Hope this clarifies matters, pleases let us know if this answers your request
> or whether you still expect a formal group reply,
>  
> Axel
>  
>  
>  
> 
>> 
>> From: Rob Vesse [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org]
>> Sent: Freitag, 14. September 2012 01:39
>> To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
>> Subject: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>> 
>> I am working towards getting dotNetRDF back to as close to 100% compliance
>> with the current state of the SPARQL 1.1 Query and Update specifications as
>> possible and have run into one test case which is confusing to me because it
>> seems as odd with SPARQL 1.0 behavior.
>> 
>> This is syntax-update-53.ru:
>> 
>> PREFIX : <http://www.example.org/>
>> INSERT DATA { 
>>               GRAPH<g1> { _:b1 :p :o }
>>               GRAPH<g2> { _:b1 :p :o }
>>             }
>> Currently my implementation rejects this on the grounds that the same blank
>> node is reused in different graph patterns.  It was my understanding that the
>> 1.0 specification forbade this and there are in fact a selection of 1.0 tests
>> that specifically check that a parser rejects such queries.
>> So I assume one of three things must be true:
>> 1 - This restriction has been removed in SPARQL 1.1 (if so where does the
>> spec state this?)
>> 2  The restriction does not apply to updates
>> 3 - The test case is incorrect
>> I would appreciate some feedback on this specific test case but also that the
>> working group would please make sure the test suite is all up to date and
>> accurate (sorry to complain yet about this yet again but it really makes it
>> hard to check an implementation if you have to check for each failing test
>> whether the test case is actually correct)
>> Rob
Received on Friday, 14 September 2012 15:47:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 September 2012 15:47:15 GMT