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 14:37:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4FFC3036.5080805@epimorphics.com>
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 10/07/12 14:19, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> Hia again,
>> Does not change anything.  It does not create a shared bNode.
> I don't want to test shared bnodes

The reason the test was put in was to capture the fact that it is the 
same bnode and not a renaming apart of nodes from the graph on an INSERT.

It matters for stores that can have one graph as a subgraph of another.

> , because - as I think you agree -  this is not
> expressible. I want to approximate this (just as 05a tries to approximate this).
> I think that insert-05 is a closer approximation than insert-05a, that's why
> I prefer to have 05 in.

I do not agree - 05 is not a close approximate because in the test tests 
there are two bnodes, one in g1 and one in g2 and they are different.

You have not replied to my point that 05 is wrong and is only passable 
because of the specific definition in the test description, nothing to 
do with SPARQL itself. 05 is wrong because, by definition of RDF 
parsing, the test results must be different bNodes.

A better definition in the test description based on dataset bnode 
isomorphism, would *require* a fail of test 05.

We could write a stronger 05b but at least 05a will work for dataset 
bnode isomorphism and 05 will fail at that point.


> Hope that clarifies matters,
> Axel
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 13:38:35 UTC

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