- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:46:08 -0700
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/20/2015 10:25 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-03-20
> 09:29-0700]
>> On 03/20/2015 07:53 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-03-20
>>> 06:54-0700]
[...]
>> The point of the example is to force the recursion through the
>> negative branch of the exclusive or, so removing the ex:q triples is a
>> very different example.
>
>
> Hmm, adding { ex:b ex:q ex:z . ex:c ex:q ex:z . } back in causes it to
> fail trivially on the XOR:
>
> FAIL { Errors: ☹ expected <http://ex.example/#a> <http://ex.example/#p>
> <http://ex.example/#c>. to match <http://ex.example/#p> @<T>* FAIL {
> Errors: ☹ no matches of ((<http://ex.example/#q> @<Z>)|
> (<http://ex.example/#r> @<T>))[[]] Matches: ex:q @<Z> matched by ex:c
> ex:q ex:z . PASS {
>
> } ex:r @<T> matched by ex:c ex:r ex:b . PASS {
>
> } }
Why does ex:b match <T>? Why does ex:c not match <T>?
> Narrating that a bit I see that it failed on ex:a ex:p ex:c because it
> didn't match the XOR, because it matched both ex:q @<Z> and ex:r @<T>.
> I'm not sure that tested what you wanted to test.
peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVDFzgAAoJECjN6+QThfjztoUIAJ5h/sZQ4F6J6ZX1dThzLm2m
DAs/i2r0gHDydZBgCqbxDGFaAewGmio0Tv6QStsQhgKIbezkdevBVDCNdjTajAiR
V/Gca+/h9TQwPpRLuURJsRLK4mGYMLNiQ87fcIRq7N+aWwzlAse0wGLBHHvsy2/W
+g6JCOqJh9y/AhacPt3qn7PYp57XMJevM5KdXbs5BCXuePg4RHau55mTYODBOBMZ
log8MfRdBG2WsZyUdjrXcFbT4Sx5VGcB4hcxI6JLYhqGDgamq7Iwm+kioAMgQybg
rWw3O+3tUTomtSnQMNZ2NrTsX1X6+Cjc0ZPIPa5FqGgbR1oaqimNos2xfFU/4w8=
=Oz3l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 17:46:42 UTC