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 14:59:17 +0200
To: "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE8013E03D85EBC@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Hi Andy,

I don't want to hold anythnig up here, would the following fix within
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/insert-05a-g1-pre.ttl
change your negative perception of insert-05?

    s/_:b1/[]/

That would make clear that we are not talking about shared blank node labels here.
Would that be a compromise?


> " in fact, does not actually test the right thing"

I am frankly not sure what you mean by "the right thing"

Just to recap, what I was aiming at testing here is whether
the double insert is idempotent.

05 tests this, i.e. it tests whether the resulting graphs stay equivalent
according to the definition (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-graph-equality).

05a does *not* test this, is tests whether the resulting graphs have the same
number of triples, not whether they are equivalent. I do not oppose test case 05a at all,
it is fine to approve it, but it tests a weaker condition.

That's why I'd prefer to have 05 in as well (with the proposed change above, if that's something people can live with).

Best regards,
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, 10 July 2012 2:36 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 10/07/12 12:48, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> >
> >> ARQ passes 05 because ARQ only does graph isomorphism compare, not
> >> dataset isomorphism compare - it ought to fail but ARQ
> only has graph
> >> isomorphism checking code which is enough for all other tests.
> >
> >
> > But isn't this exactly what we ask for in the tests-README?
> > Cf.
> >
> >>
> 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."
> >
> >
> > We ask here exactly for equivalence in the sense of
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-graph-equality
> (i.e. modulo bnode labels)... So if 05a works for an
> implementation, then 05 should work as well, shouldn't it?
>
> If you define works as "passes our specific definition of a
> test that, in fact, does not actually test the right thing" then yes.
>
> 05 is not possible using the defn.
>
> 05a avoids the problem.
>
> 05 is confusing and adds nothing.
>
>       Andy
>
> >
> > Axel
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 12:59:57 GMT

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