- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:52:23 +0100
- To: Jeen Broekstra <jeen@aduna.biz>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Jeen Broekstra wrote: > > I'm trying to encode some simple test cases for sorting and need a way > to encode ordered query results. > > As we discussed at the last telcon, the RDF variable binding results > format could be extended with an :index property (with an integer > value) to capture this: > > [] rdf:type rs:ResultSet ; > rs:resultVariable "n" ; > rs:solution > [ rs:index "1"^^xsd:integer ; > rs:binding [ rs:value "John" ; > rs:variable "n" > ] > ] ; > rs:solution > [ rs:index "2"^^xsd:integer ; > rs:binding [ rs:value "George" ; > rs:variable "n" > ] > ] ; > > ...etc. > > One question that was raised is how this affects current testing > tools. I personally do not see much of a problem provided this > property is part of the actual query result - testing can still be > done using graph matching. Any comments? Presumably the indexing information is only added if the query involved ORDER BY. A query test with no implication of order would generate solutions in any order and a test for graph equivalence would continue to work. (I don't test results specifically - I test for whether two graphs are the same (isomorphic to within bNode relabelling)). > > Another issue is the XML result format. An option is to not specify > anything explicitly and simply rely on XML's element ordering, but I > understood from Dave that the current WD explicitly specifies that the > result is unordered. There are two options here that I can see: > > 1. amend the WD to say that in the case of a query using sort, the > xml result _is_ ordered implicitly. > 2. add an explicit tag to the XML result to indicate that the result > is ordered. > > My preference would be option 2. +1 - my preference as well. I'd suggest always including a tag that indicated whether the result set is ordered or unordered. Andy > > > Jeen
Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 12:55:39 UTC