- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 11:03:15 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
The following is a list of tests from my excuses file, was wondering
if anyone else agrees that they don't match the spec:
Uses old syntax:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-unsaid-001
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-unsaid-002
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-unsaid-003
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-source-simple-001
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-source-simple-002
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-source-simple-003
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-source-simple-004
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-source-simple-005
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-triple-
pattern-001-oldsyntax
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-triple-
pattern-002-oldsyntax
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-triple-
pattern-003-oldsyntax
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-triple-
pattern-004-oldsyntax
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#source-query-001
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#source-query-002
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#source-query-003
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#source-query-004
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#source-query-005
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#optional-and
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#optional-outer-and
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#optional-outer-and-
with-bound
Spec gives different results:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#extendedtype-ne-fail
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#extendedtype-literal-ne
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#langmatches-3
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#langmatches-4
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#sorting-one-of-one-column
Things I'm not quite sure about:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#typepromotion-decimal-
decimal-pass
Should promote to xsd:integer?
I've omitted all the spec-* tests as loads of them are missing data
or broken in some way.
If other people agree these are broken, perhaps we could mark them as
negative tests or remove them?
- Steve
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 10:03:18 UTC