- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:22:14 +0100
- To: "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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 UTC