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

RE: another update test added (was: RE: Questions on grammar restrictions on Blank Node reuse across...)

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:31:05 +0200
To: "greg@evilfunhouse.com" <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE8013E038BEFED@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Addressing ACTION-656 and ACTION-642 (which are the same, I just noticed...)

When looking at

I ask myself the following:

In http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html#updateevaltests
we write:

  "A SPARQL implementation passes a update evaluation test if the graphs in the graph store are equivalent [RDF-CONCEPTS] to the graphs denoted in the mf:action property (and mf:result property, respectively) prior to the update execution (after update execution, respectively). Equivalence can be tested as described above for query evaluation tests."

Which, in my understanding, means that a test case that passes
also passes
doesn't it? (since insert-05-g1-pre.ttl is graph equivalent to any other graph using diferent blank node labels. Right?

Thus, if I got that right, my suggestion would be to keep http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/insert-05.ru (and probably add a reference to this email in the description)


P.s.: note that the exact wording in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html#updateevaltests slightly differs at the moment... Some superfluous closing parenthesis, essentially, only editorial. Will fix this when I have access to CVS again.

Dr. Axel Polleres
Siemens AG Österreich
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies

Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Williams [mailto:greg@evilfunhouse.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 7:46 PM
> To: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Re: another update test added (was: RE: Questions on
> grammar restrictions on Blank Node reuse across...)
> On May 28, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Gregory Williams wrote:
> >> So it generates different blanks nodes each time it's
> read, hence no shared bank node *in creating the results* --
> nothing to do with the operation.
> >
> > Correct. As I said, and as you describe, the problem is the
> multiple parsing of the same file into the expected dataset,
> not in the update evaluation.
> >
> >> Hence either specify results in TriG/N_quads (but these
> are under-defined in this area) or make a conclusion that
> records the intended result and test for that (my long update
> request suggestion).
> >
> > Yes. I think your proposed solution (inserting the
> statement count back into the dataset) is the only sensible
> path forward on this.
> I've added a new variant of this test that avoids these bnode
> issues by actually testing for the underlying issue (that
> bnode insertion is idempotent). The new test is
> basic-update/manifest.ttl#insert-05a. Both Andy and I pass it
> with our implementations.
> .greg
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 15:31:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:07 UTC