W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: first setup of reorganized tests checked in

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:34:14 +0100
To: Jeen Broekstra <j.broekstra@tue.nl>
Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070109143414.GA8799@w3.org>
* Jeen Broekstra <j.broekstra@tue.nl> [2007-01-08 12:53+0100]
> In http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/
> you will find:
>  - manifest-evaluation.ttl:  a 'super-manifest' containing
>    references to all manifests with query evaluation test cases.
>  - manifest-syntax.ttl: a 'super-manifest' containing references
>    to all manifests with query syntax test cases.
>  - syntax/ : a directory containing a manifest and a set of files
>    documenting both positive and negative syntax tests (these are
>    copies from /data/SyntaxFull/).
>  - triple-match/ : a directory containing a manifest and a set of
>    files documenting a few simple query evaluation tests (these are
>    copies from /data/simple/).
> The manifests have been updated to use URIs for each test (instead of
> blank nodes). They currently do not yet contain EricP's annotations but
> I guess that can be easily amended.

attached is the output of running the scannar on *.rq in those dirs.

> Regarding the syntax tests: a few of these I have spotted to be out of
> data with respect to the current spec, specifically the following two:

I started out characterizing a class of syntax tests and data tests. I
noticed that almost every data test rendered a syntax redundant. I
think we only need syntax tests when we:

  (A) discover a whole in our coverage that we don't feel compelled to
  write an actual data test

  (B) *can't* test something (so far, I've identified DESCRIBE as
  needing this, if we want to bother testing it at all (which I

> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/syntax/manifest#syntax-bnodes-03
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/syntax/manifest#syntax-bnodes-04
> (which both deal with blank nodes in a predicate position). Instead of
> removing these tests I have relabeled them as negative syntax tests and
> have removed the 'dawg:Approved' annotation.
> Before we go into (re)approving any of these tests (both the syntax and
> the evaluation tests) I would like a few others to eyeball them and
> filter out possible obsoletes. I have ran this set through our SPARQL
> engine and have not encountered any glaring errors, but...
> Comments welcome.
> Cheers,
> Jeen
> PS I also made a modest addition to the
> DataAccess/test/test-manifest.n3: I've added a QueryEvaluationTest class.
> -- 
> Dr. Jeen Broekstra                                          Den Dolech 2
> Information Systems Group                                        HG 7.76
> Department of Mathematics and Computer Science              P.O. Box 513
> Technische Universiteit Eindhoven                      5600 MB Eindhoven
> tel. +31 (0)40 247 36 86                                 The Netherlands


office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +1.857.222.5741

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:35:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:53 UTC