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

aggregate tests cases ready to approve?

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:53:41 +0000
Message-Id: <82F229D6-F8B5-4224-A480-9279D5FCA3CE@deri.org>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I was trying to look into/track test cases ready to approve prior to the conf. call, but didn't yet get very far in my investigations...
Let me try, ordered by subdirectories of 
to start off with this email on the aggregates test cases:

1) aggregates:

Test case:


   posted originally by Greg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0375.html
     :agg-avg-02, :agg-sum-02, seem to have caused some discussion about precision of results, encoding of exponent "e" vs "E" between Greg and Andy, is that solved?

   where PROPOSED to be approved in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-08-24#test_cases modulo ACTION-300 and ACTION-301, only ACTION ACTION-301 on steve is pending here... Steve can you have a look? 
   ... my memories not really very fresh here, but as I read the current version of rq25.xml, we finally went against projection of GROUPED BY expressions, in the current 11.4 Aggregate Projection Restrictions seems to reflect this. Accordingly, 

    Option 1: either we change :agg08 to a NegativeSyntaxTest, 

    Option 2: or fix it as follows:

       PREFIX : <http://www.example.org/>

       SELECT ?O12 (COUNT(?O1) AS ?C)
       WHERE { ?S :p ?O1; :q ?O2 } GROUP BY ((?O1 + ?O2) AS ?O12)
       ORDER BY ?O12

   Option 3: do both, i.e. add Option 2 as agg08b

   ... are all negative syntax tests an look ok to me as such.

more to follow
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 14:55:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:03 UTC