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

Re: Test cases for approval

From: Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:08:20 -0500
Message-ID: <4D6E4F54.9080600@oracle.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi,

To answer Axel's question about canonicalization, Oracle canonicalizes all xsd-typed literals.

For example, if you insert:
:a :p "001"^^xsd:decimal .
:a :p "01"^^xsd:decimal .

Only a single triple (:a :p "1"^^xsd:decimal) makes it into the triple store. We maintain information that allows us to recreate the original non-canonicalized triples, but SPARQL queries only match against the canonicalized triples.

- Matt

On 3/2/2011 4:36 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2011, at 19:42, Birte Glimm wrote:
>
>>
>> On 1 March 2011 14:52, Axel Polleres<axel.polleres@deri.org>  wrote:
>> just looked quickly over those, manual inspection...
>>
>>
>> On 22 Feb 2011, at 16:02, Birte Glimm wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I ran the following OWL Direct Semantics tests cases and they pass:
>>> :owlds01 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials
>> looks ok to me.
>>
>>> :owlds02 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials with answer
>> looks ok to me.
>>
>>> :plainLit -- Test: Plain literals with language tag are not the same
>> looks ok to me (but why is this OWL/Entailment specific? It would be, potentially if you asked for
>> "name"^^xsd:string under D-entailment?)
>>
>> Well, another disadvantage of D-entailmen is that the datatype map is not fixed, i.e., there is no guaranee that systems support the same datatypes and one does not have to support rdf:PlainLiteral or even xsd:string, which also makes testing relatively difficult.
> The lists in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP or http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Symbol_Spaces (or intersection thereof) could be a start?
>
>> As I said, I am for removing D-entailment alltogether ;-)
> I would like this to be discussed at least once more, it seems there is use out there of datatypes - the fact that implementation do canonicalisation is IMO an indication that something should be done about datatypes at least. (We had some earlier discussion about a
> D$^-$-Entailment a while back, but I think just nobody had time to spend on it.
>
> At least I would like to gather once more which implementation does *what* about Datatypes and see whether there's need to standardise that, before we decide to drop it alltogether... but, yes, it's a matter of time as well.
>
> Axel
>>   Birte
>>
>>
>> didn't look into the bind0x tests yet...
>>
>> Axel
>>
>>> as the same literal without
>>> :bind01 -- Test: bind01 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>> :bind02 -- Test: bind02 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>> :bind03 -- Test: bind03 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>> :bind04 -- Test: bind04 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>> :bind05 -- Test: bind05 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>> :bind06 -- Test: bind06 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>> :bind07 -- Test: bind07 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
>>>
>>> The bind0x test cases are as for simple entailment, but the input data
>>> is extended o make it an OWL 2 DL ontology.  The test :plainLit is
>>> applicable also under OWL 2 RDF Based semantics.
>>> 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 Wednesday, 2 March 2011 14:09:28 GMT

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