- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 17:14:11 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> From: Steve Harris <> > Date: 9 May 2006 11:03 > > 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: As part of preparing a publishable test suite, I presume that old syntax tests don't go into it. > 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 These is bound up with what != means on unknown datatypes. ARQ currently passes these tests because "lex1"^^:unknown1 != "lex2"^^:unknown2 is false (i.e. is not positively known to be true) but that is not what the spec says (!= is defined on RDF terms as not(RDF-term-equals)) I have an action to write some open world for = tests and so I will do some for != > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#langmatches-3 It looks wrong: I get: --------------------- | p | v | ===================== | :p5 | "abc"@fr | | :p4 | "abc"@en-gb | | :p3 | "abc"@en | --------------------- (and the HTML has "abc" with no lang in all the answers). > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#langmatches-4 Looks wrong to me : I get: --------------- | p | v | =============== | :p1 | "abc" | --------------- > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#sorting-one-of-one-column Query does not parse. Then I get different answers because of duplicates > > Things I'm not quite sure about: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#typepromotion-decimal- > decimal-pass > Should promote to xsd:integer? Yes, it should. > > 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? Or fix them? Andy > > - Steve
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 16:38:10 UTC