W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: FW: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:27:12 +0100
Message-ID: <505AD360.6080202@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

> Summarizing, unless anybody disagrees, I suggest the following:
>
>   * adapt editorial suggestion 1) as above in Update
>   * amend remark 10 in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#sparqlGrammar
>     as suggested above in 2)

Yes

>   * Reply to Rob that shared blank nodes across QuadPatterns within the same insert are allowed and
>     behave as per test case basic-update/manifest#insert-05a

Yes

>   * Optionally, we could add a variant of basic-update/manifest#insert-05a to the test
>     suite that explicitly covers Rob's example.

OK.
But we than need to let everyone that has submitted test results about 
the change.



I think adding a brief note on id scoping is in order as well: Expand 
19.6 with

"""
Blank node labels are scoped to the request in which they occur.
Use of the the same label referrers to the same blank node. Blank nodes 
and fresh blank nodes are generated for each request; blank nodes
can not be referenced by label across documents (requests)

Additionally, the same blank node can not be used in two different basic 
graph patterns in a SPARQL Query or a SPARQL Update pattern (the WHERE 
clause).

The same blank node can occur in different QuadData and QuadPattern clauses.
"""

	Andy

>
> Best,
> Axel
>
>
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0163.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Rob Vesse [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 19. September 2012 20:03
> To: Polleres, Axel
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>
>
> Yes of course you can forward to the list, I will CC this to the list myself
>
> Rob
>
> From: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
> Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:39 AM
> To: Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
> Subject: RE: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>
>
>
>          Hi Rob,
>
>          I realiszed that I sent this to you only offlist. Hope it is ok for you if I fwd your suggestions with the WG list?
>
>          thanks,
>          Axel
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>                  From: Rob Vesse [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org]
>                  Sent: Dienstag, 18. September 2012 18:05
>                  To: Polleres, Axel
>                  Subject: Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>
>
>                  Hi Axel
>
>                  Perhaps if the group were to amending the following text from 3.1.1 INSERT DATA
>
>                  Variables in QuadDatas are disallowed in INSERT DATA requests (see Notes 8 in the grammar <http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#sparqlGrammar> ). That is, the INSERT DATA statement only allows to insert ground triples. Blank nodes in QuadDatas are assumed to be disjoint from the blank nodes in the Graph Store, i.e., will be inserted with "fresh" blank nodes.
>
>
>                  And add additional text something like the following:
>
>
>                  Per Note 10 in the grammar blank node identifiers may be reused across graph blocks in QuadData but users should note that distinct fresh blank nodes will be generated for each usage in each block.
>
>
>                  That's a little clunky but I'm sure the WG can come up with something a little more flowing that gets the clarification across, it's primarily just a case of referring back to that note in the main query document.
>
>
>                  Thanks,
>
>                  Rob
>
>                                  From: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
>                  Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:48 AM
>                  To: Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
>                  Subject: RE: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>
>
>
>                          Hi Rob,
>
>                          Would you have a specific editorial suggestion for a respective explaining text which we could add to the Update document?
>
>                          Thanks,
>                          Axel
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>                                  From: Rob Vesse [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org]
>                                  Sent: Freitag, 14. September 2012 17:46
>                                  To: Polleres, Axel; public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
>                                  Subject: Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>
>
>                                  Hi Axel
>
>                                  Yes this answers my specific question but I still think it may be worth the group adding some clarifying text to the specification to make the distinction clear
>
>                                  Rob
>
>                                                                  From: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
>                                  Date: Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:01 PM
>                                  To: Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
>                                  Subject: RE: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>
>
>
>                                          Hi Rob,
>
>                                          (note that this is not a formal reply, but just quickly:)
>
>                                          > 2 - The restriction does not apply to updates
>
>                                          holds.
>
>                                          SPARQL1.0 forbade (and SPARQL1.1 still forbids this blank nodes to be shared across BGPs, cf.
>                                          http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#grammarBNodeLabels
>
>                                          The group didn't see a reason to put this restriction on QuadPatterns in the head of DELETE/INSERT statements in Update (which are different from BGPs in the WHERE clause).
>
>                                          Hope this clarifies matters, pleases let us know if this answers your request or whether you still expect a formal group reply,
>
>                                          Axel
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>                                          From: Rob Vesse [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org]
>                                          Sent: Freitag, 14. September 2012 01:39
>                                          To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
>                                          Subject: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>
>
>                                          I am working towards getting dotNetRDF back to as close to 100% compliance with the current state of the SPARQL 1.1 Query and Update specifications as possible and have run into one test case which is confusing to me because it seems as odd with SPARQL 1.0 behavior.
>
>                                          This is syntax-update-53.ru:
>
>
>                                          PREFIX : <http://www.example.org/>
>                                          INSERT DATA {
>                                                        GRAPH<g1> { _:b1 :p :o }
>                                                        GRAPH<g2> { _:b1 :p :o }
>                                                      }
>                                          Currently my implementation rejects this on the grounds that the same blank node is reused in different graph patterns.  It was my understanding that the 1.0 specification forbade this and there are in fact a selection of 1.0 tests that specifically check that a parser rejects such queries.
>                                          So I assume one of three things must be true:
>                                          1 - This restriction has been removed in SPARQL 1.1 (if so where does the spec state this?)
>                                          2 - The restriction does not apply to updates
>                                          3 - The test case is incorrect
>                                          I would appreciate some feedback on this specific test case but also that the working group would please make sure the test suite is all up to date and accurate (sorry to complain yet about this yet again but it really makes it hard to check an implementation if you have to check for each failing test whether the test case is actually correct)
>                                          Rob
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 08:27:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:49 GMT