- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 17:24:28 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 9 May 2006, at 17:14, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > From: Steve Harris <> > > Date: 9 May 2006 11:03 > > > > The following is a list of tests from my excuses file, was > wondering if > > anyone else agrees that they don't match the spec: > > > > Uses old syntax: > > As part of preparing a publishable test suite, I presume that old > syntax tests don't go into it. Or they go in as negative syntax tests, to make sure no-ones got old code hanging around. > > Spec gives different results: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#extendedtype-ne-fail > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#extendedtype- > literal-ne > > These is bound up with what != means on unknown datatypes. ARQ > currently passes these tests because > > "lex1"^^:unknown1 != "lex2"^^:unknown2 is false (i.e. is not > positively known to be true) > > but that is not what the spec says (!= is defined on RDF terms as > not(RDF-term-equals)) > > I have an action to write some open world for = tests and so I will > do some for != Right, I'm not sure what the intention is, but I implemented what the spec says. > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#langmatches-3 > > It looks wrong: I get: > > --------------------- > | p | v | > ===================== > | :p5 | "abc"@fr | > | :p4 | "abc"@en-gb | > | :p3 | "abc"@en | > --------------------- Same here. > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#langmatches-4 > > Looks wrong to me : I get: > > --------------- > | p | v | > =============== > | :p1 | "abc" | > --------------- Yes. > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#sorting-one-of-one- > column > > Query does not parse. > Then I get different answers because of duplicates Ditto. - Steve
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 16:24:33 UTC