- From: Rob Vesse <rav08r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:14:12 +0000
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@gmail.com>, <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Hi DAWG I notice that in some of the per-directory manifests graphs in the datasets for Update Evaluation Tests are identified like so: ut:graphData [ ut:data <spo.ttl> ; rdfs:label "http://example.org/g1" ] But in others like so: ut:graphData [ ut:graph <delete-pre-01.ttl> ; rdfs:label "http://example.org/g1" ] So far I have found this in the manifest for delete-data but there may be others I haven't got as far as running yet The first form seems to be most commonly used (and is consistent with Query Evaluation Tests using ut:data to identify data files) so I think the 2nd form should be changed to match the first. I assume that this is supposed to mean the same thing but it would be nice if the manifests were consistent as it makes writing a test harness just that little bit more frustrating Thanks, Rob Vesse On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:20:12 +0000, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > On 17 February 2011 20:23, Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi DAWG, >> >> I'm trying to run the SPARQL 1.1 testcases at >> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/ . >> >> Unfortunately I run into trouble: at least one of the manifests (in >> entailment: [0]) has invalid Turtle syntax, causing my test rig to choke >> and halt. >> >> The problem is the two last prefix declarations in that file (for sd and >> ent) miss a mandatory trailing dot. > > Hi Jeen, > I fixed that now. > >> Could someone fix that please? It would be great if I could run my >> testing directly off the DAWG testset. >> >> Also a suggestion: there currently is one single "uber-manifest"[1] >> which encapsulates all tests for both query and update, it seems. Could >> I suggest a couple of other manifests alongside that, that group >> different subsets of all available tests? For example: one manifest for >> all query evaluation tests, one for all update tests, and one for all >> (query/update) syntax tests. > > I think that is a good suggestion, but I guess the WG has to decide > that, so I can't promise anything yet. > > Regards, > Birte > >> Regards, >> >> Jeen >> >> [0] >> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/entailment/manifest.ttl >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/manifest-all.ttl >> >> -- PhD Student IAM Group Bay 20, Room 4027, Building 32 Electronics & Computer Science University of Southampton
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 11:14:59 UTC