Re: test cases for FILTER scope and order

Andy Seaborne wrote on 09/18/2006 07:45:15 AM:

> ((I fixed the syntax errors in the manifest file - RDF collections don't 
have 
> ","'s in them.  Hope that's OK.))

Thanks, sorry about that.
 
> Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> > 
> > Hi DAWGers,
> > 
> > I've cheked into CVS six test cases for the scope and order of FILTER 
> > clauses as per this (unresolved) email thread:
> > 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0186.html
> > 
> > What I've checked in (results-wise) is my *personal* thought on what 
the 
> > behavior of FILTER is. My original message points out that the current 

> > spec. is underspecified, so these test cases are not based on it. I'd 
> > welcome discussion on what the results of these tests should be, and 
> > hopefully from there we can determine an overall design and from there 

> > we can fashion spec text.
> > 
> > The tests are described in this test manifest:
> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/Filter/manifest.n3
> > 
> > I'm summarizing them here:
> > 
> > -- data --
> > 
> > @prefix ex: <http://example.org/>
> > ex:s ex:p 1.
> > 
> > -- FILTER scope test cases --
> > 
> > -- dawg-filter-scope-001--
> > 
> > Opinion: A FILTER appearing in the same FilteredBasicGraphPattern (a 
> > sibling in the query tree) as a triple pattern matching the graph 
should 
> > constrain bindings arising from that triple pattern.
> > 
> > PREFIX ex: <http://example.org/>
> > SELECT ?x
> > {
> >   ex:s ex:p ?x .
> >   FILTER(?x > 1) .
> > }
> 
> Did you mean FILTER(?x=1), or FILTER(?x>0), or FILTER ( !(?x>1) ), here 
and 
> throughout below?
> 
> FILTER(?x>1) is false whether ?x is bound or not on this data.

You're right, the tests right now are bogus. Need to rethink what I was 
intending. Please disregard for now.

Sorry,
Lee