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

USING/USING NAMED test cases...

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:36:15 +0100
Message-Id: <6C1B9D15-1B2D-4007-A8E6-4DE27E88C997@deri.org>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Should we add the following example as test cases the test suite, making explicit that the behavior is not dictated by the spec?
Can someone remind me how/whether we have dealt with test cases that allow - implementation dependent -  alternative outcomes? 
I think I vaguely remember that we had that case already...


Graph store:
     _:a :p :o .
Do we want Q1
   INSERT {GRAPH <g1> ?s :p :o2 } WHERE  {GRAPH <g1> ?s :p :o } 

and Q2

   INSERT {GRAPH <g1> ?s  :p :o2 } USING <g1> WHERE  {?s :p :o } 
and Q3

   INSERT {GRAPH <g1> ?s  :p :o2 } USING NAMED <g1> WHERE  {GRAPH <g1> ?s  :p :o } 

behave the same or different? That is, does the new dataset defined by USING/USING NAMED change bnodes or not?

Essentially, for Q1, we'd expect as resulting graph store:

     _:a :p :o; :o2.

whereas for Q2/Q3 we probably may rather expect:

     _:a :p :o. 
     _:b :p :o2.

but that might be implementation depenent also 

     _:a :p :o; :o2.
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 22:36:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC