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: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:22:55 +0200
To: "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE801463C1AAC00@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
The additional modification in Section 19.6 sounds good to me.
May I suggest to add the following clarification, just not to
confuse readers who read the query document without having update
in mind:

s/
The same blank node can occur in different QuadData and QuadPattern clauses.
/
The same blank node can occur in different QuadData and QuadPattern clauses in <a href="(link to the SPARQL Update spec)">SPARQL Update</a> requests.
/

Best,
Axel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 20. September 2012 10:27
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: FW: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
>
>
> > 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 11:23:29 GMT

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