W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Draft response JP-5 & test case pp37 for approval

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 09:15:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4F9F9B8B.4050907@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


On 01/05/12 09:01, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
>>> I have drafted a response to JP-5, cf.
>>>      http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JP-5
>>
>> I'm confused.
>> LeeF:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0003.html
>>
>> Acknowledgement:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0014.html
>
> That one was on JP-4, but JP-5 was another comment on implementations which was as far as I can tell still open.
>

Just seemed it is addressed by the change in the design for * as the 
commenters says his comment is not about the implementations per se.

	Andy

>> I've fixed the manifest (added a test name).
>>
>> ARQ passes this test.
>
> Thanks!
>
> best,
> Axel
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Andy Seaborne [andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 9:57 AM
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft response JP-5&  test case pp37 for approval
>
> On 01/05/12 08:48, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>> In order to close off the comments section upto Feb2012, cf. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments#Last_Call_.28to_Feb_2012.29
>> I have drafted a response to JP-5, cf.
>>      http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JP-5
>
> I'm confused.
>
> LeeF:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0003.html
>
> Acknowledgement:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0014.html
>
>> In the course of this, I have added the suggested example to the test suite as
>>      http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/property-path/pp37.rq
>> which I'd kindly ask for approval/cross-checking (I haven't yet tested it with a running implementation, but it's the behaviour I assume valid with the new semantics of "*".
>>
>
> I've fixed the manifest (added a test name).
>
> ARQ passes this test.
>
>          Andy
>
>> best,
>> Axel
>>
>> BTW: I found a use case http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/property-path/pp36.rq in that directory, which is not part of the manifest.
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 08:15:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:48 GMT