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

Re: More aggregates test cases

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:22:14 +0100
Cc: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2E1A6112-31B7-484D-AB0B-158FF699C61A@deri.org>
To: "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>

On 25 Aug 2010, at 14:15, Steve Harris wrote:

> 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.

That was my understanding as well.

Axel

> 
> - 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 13:22:50 GMT

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