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

Re: SyntaxDev grammar tests review

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:25:26 +0100
Message-ID: <43398086.1060703@hp.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Dave Beckett wrote:
> I was actioned:
>   ACTION DaveB: review SyntaxDev grammar tests
> 
> and they are as follows:
> 
> Syntax-SPARQL/
> 
>   My software has checked the following, so I'm happy with them:
> 
>   syntax-basic-01.rq syntax-basic-02.rq syntax-basic-03.rq
>   syntax-basic-04.rq syntax-basic-05.rq syntax-basic-06.rq
>   syntax-bnodes-01.rq syntax-bnodes-02.rq syntax-bnodes-03.rq
>   syntax-bnodes-04.rq syntax-bnodes-05.rq syntax-bnodes-06.rq
>   syntax-bnodes-07.rq syntax-expr-01.rq syntax-expr-02.rq
>   syntax-expr-03.rq syntax-expr-04.rq syntax-expr-05.rq
>   syntax-forms-01.rq syntax-forms-02.rq syntax-limit-offset-07.rq
>   syntax-limit-offset-08.rq syntax-limit-offset-09.rq
>   syntax-lists-01.rq syntax-lists-02.rq syntax-lists-03.rq
>   syntax-lists-04.rq syntax-lists-05.rq syntax-lit-01.rq
>   syntax-lit-02.rq syntax-lit-03.rq syntax-lit-04.rq syntax-lit-05.rq
>   syntax-lit-06.rq syntax-lit-07.rq syntax-lit-08.rq syntax-lit-09.rq
>   syntax-lit-10.rq syntax-lit-11.rq syntax-lit-12.rq syntax-lit-13.rq
>   syntax-lit-14.rq syntax-order-01.rq syntax-order-02.rq
>   syntax-order-03.rq syntax-order-04.rq syntax-order-05.rq
>   syntax-order-06.rq syntax-pat-01.rq syntax-pat-02.rq syntax-pat-03.rq
>   syntax-pat-04.rq syntax-qname-01.rq syntax-qname-02.rq
>   syntax-qname-03.rq syntax-qname-04.rq syntax-qname-05.rq
>   syntax-qname-06.rq syntax-qname-07.rq syntax-qname-08.rq
>   syntax-struct-01.rq syntax-struct-02.rq syntax-struct-03.rq
>   syntax-struct-04.rq syntax-struct-05.rq syntax-struct-06.rq
>   syntax-struct-07.rq syntax-struct-08.rq syntax-struct-09.rq
>   syntax-struct-10.rq syntax-struct-11.rq syntax-struct-12.rq
>   syntax-union-01.rq syntax-union-02.rq
> 
>   Summary: all are OK
> 
> 
> Syntax-SPARQL2/
> 
>   My software has checked the following, so I'm happy with them:
> 
>   syntax-bnode-01.rq syntax-bnode-02.rq syntax-bnode-03.rq
>   syntax-dataset-01.rq syntax-dataset-02.rq syntax-dataset-03.rq
>   syntax-dataset-04.rq syntax-esc-01.rq syntax-esc-02.rq
>   syntax-esc-03.rq syntax-esc-04.rq syntax-form-ask-01.rq
>   syntax-form-ask-02.rq syntax-form-construct01.rq
>   syntax-form-construct02.rq syntax-form-construct03.rq
>   syntax-form-construct04.rq syntax-form-construct05.rq
>   syntax-form-construct06.rq syntax-form-describe01.rq
>   syntax-form-describe02.rq syntax-form-select-01.rq
>   syntax-form-select-02.rq syntax-general-01.rq syntax-general-02.rq
>   syntax-graph-01.rq syntax-graph-03.rq syntax-graph-04.rq
>   syntax-graph-05.rq syntax-keywords-03.rq syntax-lists-01.rq
>   syntax-lists-02.rq syntax-lists-03.rq syntax-lists-04.rq
>   syntax-lists-05.rq
> 
>   I didn't pass the following tests due to bugs in my grammar but
>   visually they look ok:
>     syntax-function-01.rq
>     syntax-function-02.rq
>     syntax-function-03.rq
>     syntax-function-04.rq
>     syntax-general-03.rq
>     syntax-graph-02.rq
>        - my grammar only allows GRAPH * or GRAPH ?var.
>          Does GRAPH [] have any special meaning?
>     syntax-graph-06.rq - similar to graph-02
>     syntax-keywords-01.rq
>     syntax-keywords-02.rq
> 
>   Summary: all are OK
> 
> 
> Syntax-SPARQL3/
> 
>   My software has checked the following, so I'm happy with them:
> 
>   syn-01.rq syn-02.rq syn-03.rq syn-04.rq syn-08.rq
> 
>   syn-bad-01.rq* syn-bad-02.rq* syn-bad-03.rq* syn-bad-04.rq*
>   syn-bad-05.rq* syn-bad-06.rq* syn-bad-07.rq* syn-bad-08.rq*
>   syn-bad-09.rq* syn-bad-10.rq* bnode-dot.rq*
>   bnodes-missing-pvalues-01.rq* bnodes-missing-pvalues-02.rq*
>   empty-optional-01.rq* empty-optional-02.rq*
>   filter-missing-parens.rq* lone-list.rq* lone-node.rq*
> 
>   (* tests are 'bad' tests that expect failure)
> 
>   I didn't pass the following tests due to bugs in my grammar but
>   visually they look ok:
> 
>     syn-05.rq
>     syn-06.rq
>     syn-07.rq
> 
>   Summary: all are OK
> 
> 
> I did notice some duplicate tests that probably could be removed:
> 
>  Syntax-SPARQL/ syntax-struct-04.rq and syntax-struct-05.rq
>  Syntax-SPARQL2/ syntax-form-construct05.rq and
> syntax-form-construct06.rq
>  Syntax-SPARQL2/ syntax-form-ask-01.rq and syntax-form-ask-02.

Removed
Syntax-SPARQL/syntax-struct-04.rq
Syntax-SPARQL2/syntax-form-construct05.rq
Syntax-SPARQL2/syntax-form-ask-01.rq

Manifests updated.

	Andy

> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 17:25:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT