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: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:25:21 +0200
To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80139B0B060B4@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Just to get this off the table, now that we have approved the new test cases 
including pp37, I'll send the draft response, unless any more objections by, say, tmrw. COB.

Thanks all,
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: Polleres, Axel 
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012 8:57 AM
> To: 'Andy Seaborne'; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: 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, 16 May 2012 07:25:52 GMT

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