- 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