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

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

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:30:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4DADC6BC.3050403@thefigtrees.net>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 4/19/2011 12:41 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> In completion of ACTION-373 I finally managed to check the subquery test cases.
>
> Existing test cases were all approved in
>   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-13#resolution_3
>   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-13#resolution_3
>   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-13#resolution_4
>   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-13#resolution_5
> and
>   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-20#resolution_2
> resp.
>
> 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?

The sorted tests use the rs:index property to specify order, I believe? 
See the sort/ directory.

> 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.

Go ahead and make this change in the manifest, please.


> 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.

I don't think it's worthwhile to revisit tests that are valid but 
potentially superfluous...

> 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"
>     ?

Go ahead and make this change in the manifest, please.

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

Go ahead and make this change in the manifest, please.

> 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

Great. Andy, Greg, Olivier, etc., can you try these 3 test cases out?

thanks,
Lee

> best,
> Axel
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 17:31:08 GMT

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