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

Re: CSV/TSV results test cases and suggested adaption of JSON results test cases

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:59:56 +0100
Message-ID: <4E3EEEBC.8070905@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


On 07/08/11 20:43, Axel Polleres wrote:
>
> On 7 Aug 2011, at 20:50, Gregory Williams wrote:
>
>> On Aug 7, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>
>>> 1) I added (my understanding of) what CSV and TSV test cases should return in
>>>
>>>   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/
>>>
>>> the test cases are:
>>>
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#csv01
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#tsv01
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#csv01
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#tsv02
>>>
>>> these haven't been produced automatically, so please check.
>>
>> All of these use the SELECT * form. If the variables happen to be projected in a different order than the one assumed in the csv/tsv result files, should the tests fail?
>
> Well, good point, I'd say! In http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/ it says:
>
> "The order of the variable names in the sequence is the order of the variable names given to the argument of the SELECT statement in the SPARQL query. If SELECT * is used, the order of the names is undefined."
>
> Likewise, for json, there's a sentence in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/json-results/json-results-lc.html:
> "The order of variable names should correspond to the variables in the SELECT clause of the query, unless the query is of the form SELECT * in which case order is not significant.
>
> However, I realize that there is no respective remark (I guess it should be the same for CVS and TSV) in
>   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/csv-tsv-results/results-csv-tsv.html
>
> Can/shall we change that for this pub round still? Opinions?

Too late - the final version of the FP doc has been cut and passed to 
W3C for publication. (TC 26 July 2011 - i have corrected editorial 
mistakes in processing for publication)

I haven't heard anything back : what's the status of this?

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/csv-tsv-results/WD-csv-tsv-2011-08.html

>
>>> 2) this brought me to some ommission in the json-res test cases ... where I
>> ...
>>> (note that I alsoe renamed the output files from .srj to .json).
>>
>> Why?
>
> Hmmm, ouch - confused, I thought I remembered that someone mentioned that .json was the standard suffix for JSON files and this should be changed, but actually it the discussion was the other way around [1]..... aaaargh. Sorry&  thanks, changed back to ".srj" .

Note: this was never registered as far as I know.

>
> Should ".csv" and ".tsv" then remain as is, or o we want an own suffix there as well (such as e.g. ".src" and ".srt" )

That would need MIME type registration.

They are much more plain and proper uses of CSV and TSV.  JSON is using 
JSON to record something else (a result set).

	Andy

>
> Axel
>
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0173.html
>>
>> thanks,
>> .greg
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 7 August 2011 20:00:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT