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

Re: Generating tests [was: Re: Review SPARQL Query?]

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:50:20 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimVi1O7CwWHTnz6oUnFO5dnzk36ixnpQf0EwLd2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I hope I can squeeze reviewing in at short notice, so waiting should be ok.
Regarding tests, I still have to add entailment tests, so can't really
help with query tests in addition to that.
Birte

On 17 January 2011 15:59, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 16/01/11 21:32, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>
>> On 1/16/2011 12:01 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>
>>> Birte,
>>>
>>> I think it's better to wait until the doc is finished. If, however, it
>>> fits better with your time, then there are just one or two specific
>>> points that need work (+ general editorial) so reviewing the rest could
>>> work.
>>>
>>> Overall:
>>>
>>> What we are missing most is tests. In the test work so far, we have
>>> ended up sometimes identifying differing expectations of the design with
>>> the WG. As LC is suppose to be design-stable and changes expensive, I
>>> think it's important to have test coverage before LC to make sure the WG
>>> is in proper agreement on the details.
>>
>> Hi Andy (and everyone else),
>>
>> Do you have a suggestion for how we can generate tests? Perhaps we ought
>> to enumerate all of the SPARQL 1.1 features (beginning with query), and
>> then split them up amongst all of us on the WG on Tuesday -- if each
>> person came up with a few tests per feature, it would probably get us a
>> long way to where we want to get.
>>
>> What do people think?
>>
>> Lee
>
> Works for me.
>
> There is some patchy coverage e.g.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/grouping/
>
> but I have not been tracking what's approved, what's covered and what areas
> of debate there are.
>
>        Andy
>
>>
>
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> On 13/01/11 15:24, Steve Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's correct from ,my point of view.
>>>>
>>>> - Steve
>>>>
>>>> On 2011-01-13, at 11:07, Birte Glimm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andy, Steve,
>>>>> just to confirm that I did understand this correctly in the last
>>>>> teleconf. I wait with the review until you tell me that the doc is
>>>>> ready, right?
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Birte
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
>>>>> Computing Laboratory
>>>>> Parks Road
>>>>> Oxford
>>>>> OX1 3QD
>>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>> +44 (0)1865 283520
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 16:50:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT