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

Re: addressing JP-5 (was: Re: comments JP-4 how to proceed?)

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:03:53 -0500
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4E947DF0-BAB5-4D73-974F-B0AE345256E5@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:

>> I think the issue here is that it sounds like the test suite isn't currently covering enough cases to reveal the differences in the implementations that JP-5 mentions. We should make sure we agree with the semantics in the test case JP-5 proposes, and then add it to the test suite (along with any other tests we can think of that might cover un-tested parts of the path semantics).
>> 
> 
> A minimum to address the comment would be to add the example JP-5 proposes as a test case, yes? Or do you have the feeling that  further ones are needed?

I believe there are more cases where path semantics aren't being fully tested.

.greg
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 16:04:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT