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: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:56:10 +0100
Message-ID: <4FF3161A.8030006@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


On 03/07/12 16:47, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 03/07/12 16:31, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>> Addressing ACTION-656 and ACTION-642 (which are the same, I just
>> noticed...)
>>
>> When looking at
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/insert-05a.ru
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/insert-05.ru
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/insert-05a.ru
>>
>> also passes
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/insert-05.ru
>>
>> 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)
>>
>> Best,
>> Axel
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The problem with 05 is that the results do not sufficient constrain the
> results to ensure the test does indeed test for the shared bnode.
>
> Each result graph is read in separately, generating bnodes.
>
> But the test is aimed at showing a sharing, which is not possible to
> record by defining the graphs to read from file 92 separate read actions
> -> different bNodes).

Correction:

(2 separate read actions -> different bNodes -> can't be shared).

	Andy

>
> 05a solves this by adding an INSERT that works on the state of the
> graphs to record the result. It counts the triples and gets one showing
> the two inserts were the same triple, not different ones.  Then it
> records the count in :g3, removes the troublesome g1 and g2 then we can
> test for the state of g3.
>
>      Andy
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 15:56:39 GMT

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