W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: 7 tests to induct xsd:boolean into SPARQL

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:47:07 +0000
Message-ID: <43CFD09B.4060408@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org



Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>> I flipped to the plainest of plain graph implementations and it  
>>> passes those two tests.
>> More ...
>>
>> (DanC: please note)
> 
> OK...
> 
>> Somewhile ago I added tests at Dan's request to show the relationship  
>> between filters and graphs.
>>
>> I reran tests with the plainest of plain graph implementations and  
>> some of these now do not pass.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ExprEquals/
>>
>> Equality 1-1 -- graph
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ExprEquals/query-eq- 
>> graph-1.rq
>>
>> Equality 1-2 -- graph
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ExprEquals/query-eq- 
>> graph-2.rq
>>
>> Equality - 2 var - test equals -- graph
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ExprEquals/query-eq2- 
>> graph-1.rq
>>
>>
>> To take one of them:
>>    { ?x :p ?v . FILTER ( ?v = 1 ) . }
>> and
>>     { ?x :p 1 }
>> are not the same any more because the 1 does not graph-match  
>> "1"^^xsd:double.
>>
>> I have commented out these tests for now because they are not approved  
>> and seem to be wrong.  There's a brief note in the manifest.
> 
> I see.
> 
> Eventually, during CR, I expect the WG to go thru the unapproved tests  
> and
> decide whether to fix and keep or get rid of them.
> 
> If commenting a test out makes it invisible to that process, that'll be  
> a shame.

True - I can reverse the change easily enough.  Done.  Comments in manifest to 
represent "bad" tests for people picking stuff up directly (even though 
unapproved).  It will catch people out either way.

	Andy

> I'd prefer to have the test visible and unapproved and described as  
> "quite probably broken"
> or some such in the description. If that's easy to do, please do. No  
> rush.
> Maybe it's easier to just fix the test to just use all integers instead.

> 
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:51:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT