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

Re: 2 New INSERT DATA test cases (was: Test case proposal in the context of RV-10: insert-data-same-bnode)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:29:44 -0400
Message-ID: <50657C18.4080301@w3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 09/27/2012 11:23 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> PR? Not sure.  W3C team question.
>
> It can't form part of the evidence for exiting (virtual) CR / entering 
> PR.
>

Yeah, it's just a question of clarity.   We need to be clear about which 
tests we're using for our CR exit criteria.   (Last meeting we phrased 
it as "approved tests", but we could amend that to say only tests 
approved by some date, or something, I'm sure.)

In general, we're encouraged to keep adding tests, even after REC, as 
long as they just reflect the meaning of the REC.

       -- Sandro

>     Andy
>
> On 27/09/12 13:32, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>>> Maybe it would be better to stick with the approved test
>>> suite and associated reports that we have for the meeting next week?
>>
>> I understand that we can approve more test cases and amend our test 
>> suite
>> also after PR (or at least, I haven't seen anything which contradicts 
>> this), right?
>> Sandro?
>>
>> If that's ok, then I am fine with Andy's suggestion to leave them out 
>> for the
>> implementation reports next week, but would still be happy if we had
>> another implementation reporting to pass them and if we could approve 
>> them
>> next week. (just to ensure that nobody objects afterwards with the 
>> behavior tested)
>>
>> Best,
>> Axel
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com]
>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 27. September 2012 13:54
>>> To: Polleres, Axel
>>> Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: 2 New INSERT DATA test cases (was: Test case
>>> proposal in the context of RV-10: insert-data-same-bnode)
>>>
>>> ARQ passes these new tests.
>>>
>>> However, they will not be in the EARL report for ARQ and others.
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/implementations/
>>>
>>> Maybe it would be better to stick with the approved test
>>> suite and associated reports that we have for the meeting next week?
>>>
>>>        Andy
>>>
>>> On 25/09/12 21:40, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>>>> Note that I added another variant of that test case for
>>> approval now which uses two INSERT DATAs in one request, i.e.
>>>>
>>>> 1)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/in
>>>> sert-data-same-bnode.ru
>>>> shall test the behavior of
>>>>      INSERT DATA { GRAPH :g1  { _:b :p :o }
>>>>                 GRAPH :g2  { _:b :p :o } }
>>>>
>>>> 2)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/in
>>>> sert-data-same-bnode2.ru
>>>> shall test the behavior of
>>>>    INSERT DATA { GRAPH :g1  { _:b :p :o } } ;
>>>>    INSERT DATA { GRAPH :g2  { _:b :p :o } }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Axel
>>>
>
Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 10:29:55 GMT

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