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: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:03:08 -0700
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
CC: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC7F56BA.16293%rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
Yes of course you can forward to the list, I will CC this to the list myself

Rob

From:  "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date:  Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:39 AM
To:  Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
Subject:  RE: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases

> Hi Rob, 
>  
> I realiszed that I sent this to you only offlist. Hope it is ok for you if I
> fwd your suggestions with the WG list?
>  
> thanks,
> Axel
> 
>> 
>> From: Rob Vesse [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 18. September 2012 18:05
>> To: Polleres, Axel
>> Subject: Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>> 
>> Hi Axel
>> 
>> Perhaps if the group were to amending the following text from 3.1.1 INSERT
>> DATA
>> 
>> Variables in QuadDatas are disallowed in INSERT DATA requests (see Notes 8 in
>> the grammar <http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#sparqlGrammar> ). That is,
>> the INSERT DATA statement only allows to insert ground triples. Blank nodes
>> in QuadDatas are assumed to be disjoint from the blank nodes in the Graph
>> Store, i.e., will be inserted with "fresh" blank nodes.
>> 
>> And add additional text something like the following:
>> 
>> Per Note 10 in the grammar blank node identifiers may be reused across graph
>> blocks in QuadData but users should note that distinct fresh blank nodes will
>> be generated for each usage in each block.
>> 
>> That's a little clunky but I'm sure the WG can come up with something a
>> little more flowing that gets the clarification across, it's primarily just a
>> case of referring back to that note in the main query document.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> From: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:48 AM
>> To: Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
>> Subject: RE: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>> 
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>  
>>> Would you have a specific editorial suggestion for a respective explaining
>>> text which we could add to the Update document?
>>>  
>>> Thanks,
>>> Axel
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Rob Vesse [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org]
>>>> Sent: Freitag, 14. September 2012 17:46
>>>> To: Polleres, Axel; public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>>>> 
>>>> 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 Wednesday, 19 September 2012 18:04:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 September 2012 18:04:32 GMT