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

Re: Open world value tests

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:23:26 +0100
Message-ID: <453A497E.3030002@hp.com>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:45:33PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> """
>> ACTION AndyS:
>> Write some tests for value testing (unknown types and extensibility) to add 
>> to
>> 2006/JulSep0086
>> """
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0086
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0104
>>
     ...
> 
> Of these, I only passed date-4, which does not require any extension
> to the SPARQL language as specified.
> date-1:
>   passed: "2006-08-23"^^xsd:date       = "2006-08-23"^^xsd:date
>   failed: "2006-08-23Z"^^xsd:date      = "2006-08-23"^^xsd:date
>   failed: "2006-08-23+00:00"^^xsd:date = "2006-08-23"^^xsd:date
> 
> date-2:
>   failed: "2006-08-23"^^xsd:date       != "2006-08-23"^^xsd:date

That could be passed even for a processor that does not understand xsd:date? 
Because these are the same term (date-1/passed) then  they evaluate != to 
false since the same lexical forms means same value hence
!= is know to be false for any datatype, known or unknown.

>   failed: "2006-08-23Z"^^xsd:date      != "2006-08-23"^^xsd:date
>   failed: "2006-08-23+00:00"^^xsd:date != "2006-08-23"^^xsd:date
> 
> date-3:
>   failed: "2006-08-23"^^xsd:date       > "2006-08-22"^^xsd:date
>   failed: "2006-08-23Z"^^xsd:date      > "2006-08-22"^^xsd:date
>   failed: "2006-08-23+00:00"^^xsd:date > "2006-08-22"^^xsd:date
> 
> date-4:
>   passed: datatype("2006-08-23"^^xsd:date ) = xsd:date
>   passed: datatype("2006-08-24Z"^^xsd:date) = xsd:date
>   passed: datatype("2000-01-01"^^xsd:date ) = xsd:date
> 
> These tests bring up the issue of how we test extensions. I think all
> we can do is test the bare language, writing tests that appear to
> label an extended implementation as "failed".

Right - these tests were written to capture "="/"!=" on both known and unknown 
types, and what happens when an extension datatype is known.  Not all the 
tests will be appropriate in the code DAWG test suite.

For testing extensions, how about separating the tests out into a separate 
area?  At least, have different manifest files so that an implementation can 
pick up the manifests and run the appropriate ones.

	Andy
Received on Saturday, 21 October 2006 16:23:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:27 GMT