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: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:00:00 +0100
Message-ID: <505C3AA0.4010403@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Parts relating to editing of rq25 done.

	Andy

On 20/09/12 09:27, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> Summarizing, unless anybody disagrees, I suggest the following:
>>
>>   * adapt editorial suggestion 1) as above in Update

(not done - in the update doc)

>>   * amend remark 10 in
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#sparqlGrammar
>>     as suggested above in 2)
>
> Yes

Done

(longer form used that mentions query and update)

>
>>   * 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

(This needs to be done.)

>
>>   * 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 generatedA blank label can be used 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.
> """

Done - with link as suggested by Axel.

>
>      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 Friday, 21 September 2012 10:00:31 GMT

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