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

Re: More aggregates test cases

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:15:23 +0100
Cc: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3EE0D0FF-16D6-46D0-81DB-B1D9F4D57492@garlik.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
On 2010-08-25, at 13:03, Axel Polleres wrote:

> I read this as a proposal to be added to the test cases vocabulary, i.e.
> 
>  mf:NegativeSyntaxTest ... SPARQL1.0 negative syntax test
>  mf:NegativeSyntaxTest11 ... SPARQL1.1 negative syntax test
>  mf:PositiveSyntaxTest ... SPARQL1.0 positive syntax test
>  mf:PositiveSyntaxTest11 ... SPARQL1.1 positive syntax test
> 
> In principle, I have no objection against this, but 
> 1) it worries me that people who have been running their engine 
>   against the SPARQL1.0 test suite need to adapt their tools
> 
> 2) if we do that, we also should probably distinguish 
>  mf:QueryEvaluationTest
>  mf:QueryEvaluationTest11
> 
> Overall, isn't it simpler to just keep SPARQL1.0 only tests in a separate 
> manifest and mark those? 

Can't they just be left in the old tree? I don't see any need to produce a combined testsuite.

Leaving the 1.0 tests as they were at publication is the only way to be sure that the semantics haven't been changed.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 13:16:03 GMT

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