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, 10 Jul 2012 10:44:08 +0200
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>, "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE8013E03D4E20E@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
P.s.: I edited tha manifest file at

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/manifest.ttl

to clarify that this does NOT imply mean the blank nodes are actually shared.

Concluding: I think we could keep both insert-05 and insert-05a, but I have a preference for keeping insert-05, in case we have to pick one.

Greg, any opinions?

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: Tuesday, 10 July 2012 10:32 AM
> To: andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: another update test added (was: RE: Questions on
> grammar restrictions on Blank Node reuse across...)
>
> > Correction:
> >
> > (2 separate read actions -> different bNodes -> can't be shared).
> >
> >       Andy
>
> So, doesn't this confirm my assumption that 05 and 05a
> essentially test the same thing?
>
> > > 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.
>
> The test case doesn't test *shared* bnodes, but equivalence,
> G1 and G2 are two different graphs.
>
> Greg, any opinion on that?
>
> 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, 3 July 2012 5:56 PM
> > To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: another update test added (was: RE: Questions
> on grammar
> > restrictions on Blank Node reuse across...)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/i
> > >> nsert-05a.ru
> > >>
> > >> vs.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/i
> > >> nsert-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/i
> > >> nsert-05a.ru
> > >>
> > >> also passes
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/i
> > >> nsert-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/i
> > >> nsert-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, 10 July 2012 08:44:41 GMT

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