W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

ACTION-373 look at subquery tests (3 new test cases proposed for subquery and comments to approved test cases)

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:41:18 +0100
Message-Id: <23AB5073-8D35-4E17-98FB-3D1825F4A6AA@deri.org>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
In completion of ACTION-373 I finally managed to check the subquery test cases.

Existing test cases were all approved in

However, I have some questions/comments on those still and propose 3 new TCs for extending coverage.
Summarizing, I have a question regarding ordering in results in the test cases, apart from that 
my only concerns on the approved TCs regarding their descriptions (mf:name).

1) This is a very general comment on the test cases/test case structure: 

   e.g. subquery01 (sq01.rq) doesn't have an ORDER BY clause, so any order of the results should be fine.

   That brought me to check again the compliance section for test cases, which doesn't say anything about order, but just that 
   "A SPARQL implementation passes a query evaluation test if the graph produced by evaluating the query against the RDF dataset (and encoding in the DAWG result set vocabulary, if necessary) is equivalent [RDF-CONCEPTS] to the graph named in the result (after encoding in the DAWG result set vocabulary, if necessary)."

   Do I understand right that this doesn't cover ordering? Did DAWG discuss anything about ordering of results in test cases?
   in my understanding, in the result-set.n3 format is multiple solutions are unordered: 

     ## =======================================
     ## Modelling style: uses multiple instances of a property
     ## to represent multiple results.
     ## e.g. :ResultTable has many :hasSolution properties, one per row
 I wonder how compliance of ORDER BY tests is then to be tested, whether anyone has thought of that earlier, 
 or whether I just overlooked forgot some earlier discussion in this regard?

2) Editorial, I suggest to change descriptions of sq01 and sq06:

 s/"sq0x - Subquery within graph pattern"/"sq0x - Subquery within GRAPH graph pattern"

 since any subquery is within a "graph pattern", as "graph pattern" is the general term for all graph patterns.

3) What does sq05 illustrate as opposed to sq01?
  Also Description of sq05 "sq05 - Subquery within graph pattern, from named applies" is not clear to me.

4) Description of sq06 "sq06 - Subquery with graph pattern, from named applies" is not clear to me.
   Suggested: change to 
      "sq06 - Subquery on default graph"

5) Description of sq07 "sq07 - Subquery with from" is not clear to me.
   change to 
      "sq07 - GRAPH graph pattern within subquery"

6) As for coverage, I suggest to add three more test case that 
    a) illustrate the limit-per-resource use case http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:LimitPerResource
    b) illustrate a subquery that uses built-ins within CONSTRUCT.
    c) illustrate the join semantics of subqueries (as opposed to an injecting semantics which some people might expect)

   To this end, I added subquery11-subquery13 to CVS, check http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/subquery/manifest.ttl

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 16:41:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT