W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: tests and inference?

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:37:31 +0000
Message-ID: <41C1ABBB.1020305@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Bebee, Bradley R." <BRADLEY.R.BEBEE@saic.com>

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 09:33 -0500, Kendall Clark wrote:
>>On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 08:20:33AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>>Inference affects the input graph. Our tests state the input
>>>graph explicitly.
>>This amounts to an implicit prohibition against inference being done
>>on that graph.
>>Does the test suite say that anywhere? The Sparql spec doesn't say
>>that, of course, which could be confusing.
> Hmm... yes, the test suite should be more explicit... let's see...
> the docs currently say "A query action requires two items: the
> query and the dataset."
>  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/README.html
>     $Revision: 1.5 $
> How about adding...
>   "The dataset gives the exact graph against which the query is
>   evaluated (no further inference is used to determine the
>   input graph)."
> Bonus points if you can link explicitly to the definitions
> such as...
>   "A Pattern Solution of Graph Pattern GP on graph G is any
>   substitution S such that S(GP) is a subgraph of G."
>   -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#GraphPatternMatching
> Andy, your name is on the README document, but I tend to think
> of Steve as test editor. Any preference on where I direct requests
> like this? Or should I Just Do It and let you guys undo it if you
> don't like?

I think my name is there merely because I put together the first draft.  As 
Steve is test editor, it makes more sense to me to have Steve's name there.


> The SPARQL QL spec is already explict enough, to me, but Kendall
> if you can think of a way to make it more explicit, very well,
> but keep in mind that the QL is sorta orthogonal to inference.
> The protocol spec (perhaps in some future version, or in
> a companion "discovery vocabulary" document) is where I
> expect to actually see mechanisms for querying "the RDFS closure
> of X, Y, and Z" and such, as I touched on in earlier messages...
> RE: Test cases: source of a triple
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0363.html
> Re: DESCRIBE - description of a resource
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0346.html
>>Explicit being better than implicit, I would be less bothered by this
>>if the test suite (document, whatever) made this implicit prohibition
>>against inference explicit.
>>Kendall Clark
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 15:37:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC