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: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:59:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4D497166.6000205@epimorphics.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
ARQ passes those 4 tests.

	Andy

On 01/02/11 22:36, Axel Polleres wrote:
>
> On 1 Feb 2011, at 15:12, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> Unless you're trying to make a point that missed me,
>> the file extension
>> should be .srj.
>
> ...thanks, I had missed that! Fixed in
>    http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html
> and also in
>    http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/json-res/
>
> Apart from that, any further comments anyone?
>
> thanks,
> Axel
>
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-json-res/#mediaType
>>
>> (the SPARQL 1.0 uses this BTW)
>>
>>          Andy
>>
>> 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 Wednesday, 2 February 2011 15:00:32 GMT

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