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

Re: Minutes from today and Telco Agenda for the next two week

From: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:54:38 -0500
To: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Cc: "sandro@w3.org" <sandro@w3.org>, "birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de" <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F21DDA8FE0F74A82B74E03E54959FE0B@gmail.com>
rif05 is a test involving a built-in that generates new bindings ( External(pred:iri-string(?z ?x)) ).  FuXi (which is purely a positive Horn clause interpreter with support for predicates with externally-provided truth values) only supports builtins that evaluate to a boolean value from a set of bindings, so it is not likely that it will pass rif05 next week.   

Note, as I mentioned a few teleconferences ago, the additional tests were a matter of coverage of RIF Core features and not of of SPARQL 1.1 RIF Entailment, and therefore the difference between integration testing and unit testing.         

--  
Chime Ogbuji
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com)


On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote:

> I think we should discuss whether we are happy with coverage with these tests.
> As Chime reports, we can probably approve
> #rif01
> #rif03
> #rif04
> #rif06
> And have 2 implementations passing those. However, we miss #rif02 and #rif05
>  
> while I understand we can go without rif02 (since it uses rif in RDF which is only a note),
> I feel a bit uneasy about going without rif05. Any chance we can have a second implementation
> passing rif05 within the next week?
>  
> Best,
> Axel
>  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> > Sent: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 13:31
> > To: birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de (mailto:birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de)
> > Cc: Polleres, Axel; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org (mailto:public-rdf-dawg@w3.org)
> > Subject: Re: Minutes from today and Telco Agenda for the next two week
> >  
> > On 12/10/2012 01:59 PM, Birte Glimm wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >  
> > > we have our institute's Christmas party tomorrow starting at 4pm, but
> > > I'll take my MiFi and try to connect from there. If I can't get it to
> > > work, I am happy to vote for publishing GSP and Protocol as PR as
> > > planned. I hope I manage to vote in person, but just to be sure....
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> > Given the emails from you and Chime about ER tests passing, it looks to
> > me like we're ready for ER to go to PR as well. Do you agree, or is
> > there something I'm missing?
> >  
> > -- Sandro
> >  
> > > Birte
> > >  
> > > On 4 December 2012 17:10, Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com (mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com)> wrote:
> > > > Minutes form today’s Telco are out at
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-12-04
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > As stated today, next week we aim to vote for GSP and Protocoll and
> > > > in two weeks we aim to vote for Entailment.
> > > >  
> > > > The respective Agendas are already online at:
> > > >  
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-12-11
> > > >  
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-12-18
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > comments welcome, if you miss anything there!
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > Best,
> > > >  
> > > > Axel  
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 13:55:10 GMT

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