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: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:38:07 +0200
To: "sandro@w3.org" <sandro@w3.org>, "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE801463C7A410A@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Ok, so, I think we're fine:

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

Those two tests are indeed meant to clarify the meaning of the REC
and don't change/affect any of the already approved tests.

Axel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: Freitag, 28. September 2012 12:30
> To: Andy Seaborne
> Cc: Polleres, Axel; 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)
>
> 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 10:38:38 GMT

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