Re: where is the ratified sparql 1.1 test suite?

Hi everyone,

I have had similar problems with the tests. It would be very nice, if
someone would take care that the up-to-date tests (and just those) were
always available in the tarballs.

/Esko

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:28 PM, james anderson <james@dydra.com> wrote:

>  good evening,
>
>  thank you for your note.
>
>  On 2015-05-18, at 16:01, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
>
> On May 17, 2015, at 2:11 PM, james anderson <james@dydra.com> wrote:
>
>
> good evening,
>
> i find this solution in the document held by the w3c at <
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/functions/strbefore01a.srx>
> .
>
> <result>
> <binding name="s"><uri>http://example.org/s2</uri></binding>
> <binding name="prefix"><literal></literal></binding>
> </result>
>
> i find this solution in the respective document contained in the tar
> archive, <
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/sparql11-test-suite-20121023.tar.gz>,
> a link to which is included in the <
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/> .
>
> <result>
> <binding name="s"><uri>http://example.org/s2</uri></binding>
> <binding name="prefix"><literal xml:lang="ja"></literal></binding>
> </result>
>
> this latter depicts a result which does not agree with the definition in
> the recommendation. the same situation applies to the result document,
> "strafter01.srx".
> there was discussion[1] related to this during the ratification process,
> but the messages indicate no conclusion with respect to the test documents
> themselves
>
> is there any archive file which comprises the ratified test suite?
>
>
> James,
>
> I believe that the problem you’re referring to here is the difference
> between “” and “”@ja in the results files?
>
>
>  yes, in one. in the other there is also a french language tag which would
> appear to be anomalous.
>
>  I’m not able to find the language-tagged (bad) version of that data in
> the approved test suite.
>
>
>  you raise, in passing, the proximate question: what is “the approved test
> suite”? (see below)
>
>  The tests :strbefore01a and :strafter01a both reference seemingly-valid
> result files (strbefore01a.srx and strafter01a.srx).
>
>
>  in the files served directly on the site, yes.
> in the tar archive no.
>
>
> However, the CVS repository and tarball of the test suite also contain old
> files that contain the invalid data (strbefore01.srx and strafter01.srx).
> This is unfortunate, but shouldn’t cause problems so long as you are using
> the manifest files to find approved tests and their associated files.
>
>
>  if i were to run straight from the net, i might be persuaded to agree
> with you.
> that practice suffers, however, from two deficiencies:
> - it is quite circumstantial, in that one cannot point to an object and
> indicate compliance with it, but can only say “hey, that’s what was being
> served on dddd-dd-dd@tt:tt:tt”
> - there have been innumerable occasions over the past days when w3c’s web
> front-end decided to no longer serve the content, which makes it difficult
> to run tests in that mode. sometimes for days.
>
>  i could always wget and set up our own git repository, but having
> observed any number of those already in the wild - each of unknown
> provenance and with unknown content, that does not seem to be a
> well-considered approach.
>
>  best regards, from berlin,
>
>
> .greg
>
>
>  ---
> james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Esko Nuutila
Aalto University School of Science and Technology
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
P.O.Box 15400 (T-building, Konemiehentie 2, room B218)
FI-00076 AALTO, FINLAND
tel. +358 50 5750278 mailto: esko.nuutila@aalto.fi