Re: where is the ratified sparql 1.1 test suite?

good evening,

thank you for your note.

> On 2015-05-18, at 16:01, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
> 
> On May 17, 2015, at 2:11 PM, james anderson <james@dydra.com> wrote:
>> 
>> good evening,
>> 
>> i find this solution in the document held by the w3c at <http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/functions/strbefore01a.srx> .
>> 
>>   <result>
>>    <binding name="s"><uri>http://example.org/s2</uri></binding>
>>    <binding name="prefix"><literal></literal></binding>
>>   </result>
>> 
>> i find this solution in the respective document contained in the tar archive, <http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/sparql11-test-suite-20121023.tar.gz>, a link to which is included in the <http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/> .
>> 
>>   <result>
>>    <binding name="s"><uri>http://example.org/s2</uri></binding>
>>    <binding name="prefix"><literal xml:lang="ja"></literal></binding>
>>   </result>
>> 
>> this latter depicts a result which does not agree with the definition in the recommendation. the same situation applies to the result document, "strafter01.srx".
>> there was discussion[1] related to this during the ratification process, but the messages indicate no conclusion with respect to the test documents themselves
>> 
>> is there any archive file which comprises the ratified test suite?
> 
> James,
> 
> I believe that the problem you’re referring to here is the difference between “” and “”@ja in the results files?

yes, in one. in the other there is also a french language tag which would appear to be anomalous.

> I’m not able to find the language-tagged (bad) version of that data in the approved test suite.

you raise, in passing, the proximate question: what is “the approved test suite”? (see below)

> The tests :strbefore01a and :strafter01a both reference seemingly-valid result files (strbefore01a.srx and strafter01a.srx).

in the files served directly on the site, yes.
in the tar archive no.

> 
> However, the CVS repository and tarball of the test suite also contain old files that contain the invalid data (strbefore01.srx and strafter01.srx). This is unfortunate, but shouldn’t cause problems so long as you are using the manifest files to find approved tests and their associated files.

if i were to run straight from the net, i might be persuaded to agree with you.
that practice suffers, however, from two deficiencies:
- it is quite circumstantial, in that one cannot point to an object and indicate compliance with it, but can only say “hey, that’s what was being served on dddd-dd-dd@tt:tt:tt”
- there have been innumerable occasions over the past days when w3c’s web front-end decided to no longer serve the content, which makes it difficult to run tests in that mode. sometimes for days.

i could always wget and set up our own git repository, but having observed any number of those already in the wild - each of unknown provenance and with unknown content, that does not seem to be a well-considered approach.

best regards, from berlin,
> 
> .greg
> 

---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com