W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Inconsistent syntax in testcase manifest

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>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|ddcee93e8df50692d737c307eda9165dn1MBEL06rav08r|ecs.soton.ac.uk|44c92cf2e33e3df6aa976bf448f0d5f5@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

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


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>
>> 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]
>> [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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:28 UTC