W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > January 2013

FW: Test without data?

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:56:25 +0100
To: "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE8015A1AD9C071@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Find below offlist communication (including acknowledgement) regarding comment JW-2 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Nov/0005.html).
I forward the essential parts with permission of the author, which was sent to me personally.

Best,
Axel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Wielemaker [mailto:J.Wielemaker@uva.nl]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 03. Jšnner 2013 20:43
> To: Polleres, Axel
> Subject: Re: Test without data?
>
> Hi Axel,
>
> This mail slipped during a short holiday. Sorry. Yes, I can live with
> this issue.
[...]
>       Cheers --- Jan
>
>
>
>
> On 12/04/2012 08:29 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> > Hi Jan (offlist),
> >
> >> Well, it clarifies the situation.  But, I fail to see the logic why
> >> the test doesn't simply include a qt:data statement.
> >
> > For clarification/explanation: The issue - in this stage of the
> > process - is
> more processwise: If we now touch approved test cases in the test
> suite which we have approved prior to proceeding to PR (proposed
> recommendation), it may raise issues with the W3C process to unapproved/change these test cases now.
> >
> > So, considering that this is a relatively minor issue, only
> > affecting 1-2
> test cases and has nothing to do with the specs as such, we rather
> want to leave the already approved pre-PR test cases untouched.

[...]

> > Please let me know
> whether this is ok for you or whether you expect another formal group reply to your mail!
> >
> > Thanks a lot,
> > Axel
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Wielemaker [mailto:J.Wielemaker@uva.nl]
> >> Sent: Donnerstag, 22. November 2012 20:37
> >> To: Polleres, Axel
> >> Cc: jeen.broekstra@gmail.com; public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Test without data?
> >>
> >> Dear Axel,
> >>
> >> On 11/22/2012 08:18 PM, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> >>> Dear Jan, Jeen,
> >>>
> >>> this is a joint response to your comments
> >>>
> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012O
> >>> ct
> >>> /0
> >>> 022.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Oc
> >> t/
> >> 0026.html
> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012O
> >>> ct
> >>> /0
> >>> 028.html
> >>>
> >>>   We have added the following clarifying note to the README file
> >>> describing Query Evaluation tests, cf.:
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html#queryevaltest
> >>> s
> >>>
> >>> "In case the query in the qt:query predicate contains FROM and
> >>> FROM NAMED clauses and no qt:data is present, the graphs
> >>> comprising the test's RDF dataset are expected to be loaded by
> >>> dereferencing the respective URIs of the FROM/FROM NAMED clauses."
> >>>
> >>> We'd appreciate if you could let us know in a brief response
> >>> whether this addresses your concern.
> >>
> >> Well, it clarifies the situation.  But, I fail to see the logic why
> >> the test doesn't simply include a qt:data statement.  Some of the
> >> tests do
> (AFAIK).
> >> Why not all?  Now the test driver cannot simply prepare the data.
> >> FROM, neither FROM NAMED defines that it should load any data.  You
> >> force this unspecified behaviour on the test framework, asking the
> >> query evaluator to execute it or the test driver to parse the
> >> queries and
> perform the loading.
> >>
> >> For short, I think that adding a couple of qt:data statements is a
> >> much simpler and better solution.  It simplifies writing the test
> >> driver and most likely saves a lot of time for testers to deal with
> >> this
> issue.
> >>
> >>        Regards --- Jan
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Axel, on behalf of the SPARQL WG
> >>>
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 08:56:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 January 2013 08:56:52 GMT