Re: compact-0018

It looks like you may have already sorted this out, but my understanding 
was that Markus had changed that test to reflect his term ranking 
algorithm rather than the one in the spec -- as the term ranking stuff 
was still under discussion. I'm waiting to update my processor 
implementations based on what gets finalized on that issue.

On 10/20/2012 05:47 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> I think there's a problem in compact-0018 regarding finding the 
> appropriate terms for term1 and term2.
>
> The test includes two lists, associated with an IRI shared between 
> term1 and term2. The difference is that term1 and no language defined, 
> and term2 has a language different from the default of the context 
> ("en" vs "de").
>
> The result comes down to calculating the term ranks for each value in 
> the list. I come up with the following calculations:
>
>
> *value*
> 	
> *term1*
> 	
> *term2*
> { "@value": "v1.1", "@language": "de" },
> 	
> 3
> 	
> 0
> { "@value": "v1.2", "@language": "de" },
> 	
> 3
> 	
> 0
> { "@value": "v1.3", "@language": "de" },
> 	
> 3
> 	
> 0
> 4,
> 	
> 2
> 	
> 1
> { "@value": "v1.5", "@language": "en" },
> 	
> 1
> 	
> 3
> { "@value": "v1.6", "@language": "en" }
> 	
> 1
> 	
> 3
> *total (term1)*
> 	
> *13*
> 	
> *7*
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> { "@value": "v2.1", "@language": "en" },
> 	
> 1
> 	
> 3
> { "@value": "v2.2", "@language": "en" },
> 	
> 1
> 	
> 3
> { "@value": "v2.3", "@language": "en" },
> 	
> 1
> 	
> 3
> 4,
> 	
> 2
> 	
> 1
> { "@value": "v2.5", "@language": "de" },
> 	
> 3
> 	
> 0
> { "@value": "v2.6", "@language": "de" }
> 	
> 3
> 	
> 0
> *total (term2)*
> 	
> *11*
> 	
> *10*
>
>
> (pardon the formatting)
>
> Basically, I find that term1 is selected in both cases, which results 
> in an illegal compaction, as a term with @container: @list can't have 
> two list values.
>
> The playground, and presumably Markus' implementation does allocate 
> between term1 and term2, so it seems that there's an inconsistency.
>
> I think the test would be just as valid if v1.5 were "de" and v2.5 
> were "en", which would give the totals of 15 and 4 for the v1.x values 
> and 9 and 13 for the v2.x values, which would result in the proper 
> allocation.
>
> Am I missing some detail in the algorithms?
>
> Gregg Kellogg
> gregg@greggkellogg.net <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>
>


-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
http://digitalbazaar.com