W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Added description of entailment evaluation tests to test case README (ACTION-268 completed)

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:59:58 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <1DC71904-0BC6-4566-B916-31A0EB634B35@deri.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
very true, I missed that one... in fact that's a design problem of that current approach for entailment tests...
because if you separate the entailment triple, then you can't use the same graph in different test cases with different entailment regimes... 

any proposal how to fix this? Birte? anyone else? (only have time later to think about it)

That following could work (but is ugly, since it uses qt:data in a nested fashion):

:rdf01 rdf:type mf:QueryEvaluationTest ;
     mf:name    "RDF inference test" ;
     dawgt:approval dawgt:NotClassified ;
     mf:action
          [ qt:query  <rdf01.rq> ;
            qt:data   [ qt:data <rdf01.ttl> ;
                        sd:entailmentRegime ent:RDF ] ] ; 
     mf:result  <rdf01.srx>
     .

What I mean to say is that qt:data (and qt:graphData) could be allowed to instead of directlty referring to a dereferenceable resource
be described in terms of a resource that has further possible properties sd:entailmentRegime (or likewise rdfs:label to indicate the graph name, as I already proposed earlier).

Admittedly not beautiful, but would work... opinions?

Axel

On 21 Jul 2010, at 14:26, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> Bad RDF:
> 
> :rdf01 rdf:type mf:QueryEvaluationTest ;
>      mf:name    "RDF inference test" ;
>      dawgt:approval dawgt:NotClassified ;
>      mf:action
>           [ qt:query  <rdf01.rq> ;
>             qt:data   <rdf01.ttl> ;
>             <rdf01.ttl> sd:entailmentRegime ent:RDF ] ; <- *********
>      mf:result  <rdf01.srx>
>      .
> 
> 
>         Andy
> 
> On 20/07/2010 2:38 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > I added a description of entailment evaluation tests to test case README, cf.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html#entailevaltests
> >
> > this completes ACTION-268. on the way I made some minor editorial corrections on the current entailment tests manifest file
> > (http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/entailment/manifest.ttl)
> >
> > comments welcome,
> >
> > Axel
> >
> >
> >
> > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> >
> > Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> > shared innovation™
> >
> > Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
> >
> > Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 16:00:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:43 GMT