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

Re: JSON result tests added (completes ACTION-367)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:12:53 +0000
Message-ID: <4D4822F5.9010007@epimorphics.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Unless you're trying to make a point that missed me, the file extension 
should be .srj.


(the SPARQL 1.0 uses this BTW)


On 01/02/11 13:21, Axel Polleres wrote:
> Hi all,
> 4 "JSON result format" test cases can be found under
>     http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/json-res/
> In this context, I also looked into
>       http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html
> to see what I need to adapt for tests of the SPARQL results format...
> We have - actually - not really  defined testing of the results format
> per se, but basically say that SELECT and ASK queries pass, if the result
> is equivalent after encoding results into RDF:
>    "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)."
> We haven't specified in detail how the  conversion to DAWG result set vocabulary works in sparql/docs/tests/result-set.n3
> Anyways, I think that's a minor issue, or does anyone think we need to define the mapping for each result format? (I think/hope it is quite obvious)
> So far, I just added some lines allowing the JSON results format, under the name/short-name suggested by Andy [1] in the test case README.html
> Opinions welcome!
> best,
> Axel
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0140.html
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 15:13:38 UTC

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