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: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:34:32 +0200
To: "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE801463C452744@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Summarizing the missing parts on my end:

1) 
> > >>   * adapt editorial suggestion 1) as above in Update
> > 
> > (not done - in the update doc)

Done, cf. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#insertData

2) 
> > >>   * 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.)

Response drafted at: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:RV-10
pending approval of test case :insert-data-same-bnode as per
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JulSep/0208.html
(could not yet commit to CVS)


Axel


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com]
> > Sent: Freitag, 21. September 2012 12:00
> > To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: FW: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
> > 
> > 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.h
> > >> tml
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >> 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 Tuesday, 25 September 2012 09:36:58 GMT

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