- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:54:37 -0600
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
While working on SOURCE definitions... Formalizing SPARQL rules Noodling on using MathML for the definitions in the SPARQL spec, and deriving N3 from it. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/mathml-rules.xml ... I ended up with a sort of implementation of a tiny bit of SPARQL in N3 I got it to pass the 1st test... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-triple-pattern-001 i.e. from these data http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/simple/data-01.n3 and this query http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/simple/dawg-tp-01.rq my implementation agrees that these are solutions http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/simple/result-tp-01.n3 My implementation can't recover the information that's lost when some variables are not SELECTed, but I eyeballed these and I propose we adopt them: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-triple-pattern-002 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-triple-pattern-003 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-triple-pattern-004 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#sparql-query-example-2-1a http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#sparql-query-example-2-2a http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#sparql-query-example-2-3a http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#sparql-query-example-2-4a I'm not prepared to endorse the datatype tests; I don't like the special syntax for <. I probably won't object if somebody else proposes it, but I'd abstain. There are still various issues with the test documentation: The result format, in particular the :value property uses, rather than mentioning, terms, but I can live with that, I suppose, but it's similar to the problem with rdf:subject/predicate/object that makes them useless for many things that people want to use them for. There's no specification for the format the test data is written in, i.e. turtle. Let's at least add a link to http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2004/01/turtle/ for now; eventually I think a copy is in order (ala the way n-triples is specified in the RDF Core test docs). And I don't mean to undo our agreement to provide all the materials in RDF/XML as well as turtle. (cf 2Nov minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0210.html and the subsequent minutes which show SteveH's continuing action). I propose we adopt these 8 tests. Can I get a second? DaveB, you have run them in the past; wanna double-check them in their present condition? Jos, are you happy with these 8 tests? Has anybody else either eyballed them or got code that passes them? Anybody see any reason why we should *not* adopt them? Does anybody have a problem with the syntax used in these first few tests? I welcome ammendments to this proposal that regard only these 8 tests. Anybody that wants to approve other tests is more than welcome to make a separate proposal. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 00:54:39 UTC