- From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:56:25 +0100
- To: "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Find below offlist communication (including acknowledgement) regarding comment JW-2 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Nov/0005.html). I forward the essential parts with permission of the author, which was sent to me personally. Best, Axel > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Wielemaker [mailto:J.Wielemaker@uva.nl] > Sent: Donnerstag, 03. Jänner 2013 20:43 > To: Polleres, Axel > Subject: Re: Test without data? > > Hi Axel, > > This mail slipped during a short holiday. Sorry. Yes, I can live with > this issue. [...] > Cheers --- Jan > > > > > On 12/04/2012 08:29 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote: > > Hi Jan (offlist), > > > >> Well, it clarifies the situation. But, I fail to see the logic why > >> the test doesn't simply include a qt:data statement. > > > > For clarification/explanation: The issue - in this stage of the > > process - is > more processwise: If we now touch approved test cases in the test > suite which we have approved prior to proceeding to PR (proposed > recommendation), it may raise issues with the W3C process to unapproved/change these test cases now. > > > > So, considering that this is a relatively minor issue, only > > affecting 1-2 > test cases and has nothing to do with the specs as such, we rather > want to leave the already approved pre-PR test cases untouched. [...] > > Please let me know > whether this is ok for you or whether you expect another formal group reply to your mail! > > > > Thanks a lot, > > Axel > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jan Wielemaker [mailto:J.Wielemaker@uva.nl] > >> Sent: Donnerstag, 22. November 2012 20:37 > >> To: Polleres, Axel > >> Cc: jeen.broekstra@gmail.com; public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > >> Subject: Re: Test without data? > >> > >> Dear Axel, > >> > >> On 11/22/2012 08:18 PM, Polleres, Axel wrote: > >>> Dear Jan, Jeen, > >>> > >>> this is a joint response to your comments > >>> > >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012O > >>> ct > >>> /0 > >>> 022.html > >>> > >>> > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Oc > >> t/ > >> 0026.html > >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012O > >>> ct > >>> /0 > >>> 028.html > >>> > >>> We have added the following clarifying note to the README file > >>> describing Query Evaluation tests, cf.: > >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html#queryevaltest > >>> s > >>> > >>> "In case the query in the qt:query predicate contains FROM and > >>> FROM NAMED clauses and no qt:data is present, the graphs > >>> comprising the test's RDF dataset are expected to be loaded by > >>> dereferencing the respective URIs of the FROM/FROM NAMED clauses." > >>> > >>> We'd appreciate if you could let us know in a brief response > >>> whether this addresses your concern. > >> > >> Well, it clarifies the situation. But, I fail to see the logic why > >> the test doesn't simply include a qt:data statement. Some of the > >> tests do > (AFAIK). > >> Why not all? Now the test driver cannot simply prepare the data. > >> FROM, neither FROM NAMED defines that it should load any data. You > >> force this unspecified behaviour on the test framework, asking the > >> query evaluator to execute it or the test driver to parse the > >> queries and > perform the loading. > >> > >> For short, I think that adding a couple of qt:data statements is a > >> much simpler and better solution. It simplifies writing the test > >> driver and most likely saves a lot of time for testers to deal with > >> this > issue. > >> > >> Regards --- Jan > >> > >>> > >>> Axel, on behalf of the SPARQL WG > >>>
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 08:56:51 UTC