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

> 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.

Well, yes, but also he writes:

> The comment is about current implementations of property paths.
[...]
> Beside, as far as I know, there is no test case covering this example. 

Note, my idea was particularly to reflect in a response that the test case 
was now added and that of course we will make sure that there are compliant 
implmentations of the new design as a next step. Ok to send?

best,
Axel

 
-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres 
Siemens AG Österreich 
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies 
CT T CEE 
 
Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983 
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 10:15 AM
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft response JP-5 & test case pp37 for approval
> 
> 
> 
> 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/0
> > 003.html
> >
> > Acknowledgement:
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0
> > 014.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/propert
> y-path/pp36.rq in that directory, which is not part of the manifest.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 06:57:25 UTC