W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: 'FILTER' '(' Expression ')'

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:32:06 +0100
Message-ID: <42B049F6.3090100@hp.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

Dave Beckett wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 11:58 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
>>As per the telecon, this change has been made: I took the route of a chnage that 
>>affected the least number of approved tests (as per Eric's suggestion).
> 
> 
> Which change of the two proposals did you choose?

I followed the strawpoll - proposal 1.  I followed Eric's suggestion was to
include all function call like forms and he tested that during the meeting. It
minimising the test changes needed.

> 
> 
>>1 syntax test is changed.

syntax-expr-01.rq

Apologies - only just commited this - I made the change but didn't cvs commit.

(There seems to disalignment of the syntax-qname tests (not all are in the
manifest - this is probably an accident from a numbering mistake I made awhile ago).

> 
> 
> Which one?  You mean a test under SyntaxFull (which we approved to close
> the syntax punctuation issue) ?

The fact that an approved test would have to chage was why I asked for it to be
on the agenda.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0385.html



Hmm - syntax-keywords-* are new tests added recently.  Where did these come
from?  They are not marked approved but are in that test suite.

> 
> 
>>I have searched through rq23 and changed the examples.
>>
>>Grammar updated in rq23
> 
> 
> Can you say which terms changed and what was updated?

If you browse from:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#rConstraint

[25] Constraint ::= 'FILTER' ( BrackettedExpression | CallExpression )

I did some reorganising to bring together related terms.  There had been
preparatory changes so it will depend on which version you are diff'ing against.


> 
> 
>>I have updated other tests in the test collection that are affected (29) :
>>
>>Bound/bound1.rq
>>Expr1/expr-1.rq
>>Expr1/expr-2.rq
>>Expr1/expr-3.rq
>>Expr2/query-bev-1.rq
>>Expr2/query-bev-3.rq
>>Expr2/query-bev-4.rq
>>Expr2/query-bev-5.rq
>>Expr2/query-bev-6.rq
>>ExprBuiltIns/q-datatype-1.rq
>>ExprBuiltIns/q-str-1.rq
>>ExprBuiltIns/q-str-2.rq
>>ExprBuiltIns/q-str-3.rq
>>ExprBuiltIns/q-str-4.rq
>>ExprEquals/query-eq-1.rq
>>ExprEquals/query-eq-2.rq
>>ExprEquals/query-eq-3.rq
>>ExprEquals/query-eq-4.rq
>>ExprEquals/query-eq-5.rq
>>ExprEquals/query-eq2-1.rq
>>ExprEquals/query-eq2-2.rq
> 
> 
> ( For myself I've not been tracking the above tests in my testing)
> 
> 
>>examples/ex11.2.3.1_0.rq
>>examples/ex11.2.3.1_1.rq
>>examples/ex11.2.3.2_0.rq
>>examples/ex11.2.3.2_1.rq
>>examples/ex11.2.3.7_0.rq
>>examples/ex11_0.rq
>>examples/ex11_1.rq
>>examples/ex3.rq
> 
> 
> Presumably these changed to match the corresponding rq23 examples.

Yes - but manual alignment until I can find time to redo the xHTML of the rq23
for automatic extraction.

> 
> 
>>I also fixed:
>>regex-query-001,2,3,4 as well as they didn't parse (missing rdf: PREFIX)
> 
> 
> ( I also haven't been tracking these yet. )
> 
> Dave
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 15:32:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT