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, 10 Jul 2012 14:10:38 +0100
Message-ID: <4FFC29CE.5020304@epimorphics.com>
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 10/07/12 13:59, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> 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/[]/

Does not change anything.  It does not create a shared bNode.

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

No - we are talking about the same blank node.  That's the point of the 

>> " in fact, does not actually test the right thing"
> I am frankly not sure what you mean by "the right thing"

shared blank node.

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

and results in a shared blank node.

> 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.

It avoids needing to define dataset isomorphics for this one test.

Under dataset isomorphism, 05 is wrong and should be failed.

The test README weakens testing to make it easier to implement.  We 
should not define SPARQL by the weaken testing.

> 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).

Why?  What does it add other than a test that should be failed!

Do you have a system that requires 05 effects?

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 13:11:16 UTC

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