- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:05:03 -0500
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Jan 19, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>
>> I flipped to the plainest of plain graph implementations and it
>> passes those two tests.
>
> More ...
>
> (DanC: please note)
OK...
> Somewhile ago I added tests at Dan's request to show the relationship
> between filters and graphs.
>
> I reran tests with the plainest of plain graph implementations and
> some of these now do not pass.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ExprEquals/
>
> Equality 1-1 -- graph
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ExprEquals/query-eq-
> graph-1.rq
>
> Equality 1-2 -- graph
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ExprEquals/query-eq-
> graph-2.rq
>
> Equality - 2 var - test equals -- graph
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ExprEquals/query-eq2-
> graph-1.rq
>
>
> To take one of them:
> { ?x :p ?v . FILTER ( ?v = 1 ) . }
> and
> { ?x :p 1 }
> are not the same any more because the 1 does not graph-match
> "1"^^xsd:double.
>
> I have commented out these tests for now because they are not approved
> and seem to be wrong. There's a brief note in the manifest.
I see.
Eventually, during CR, I expect the WG to go thru the unapproved tests
and
decide whether to fix and keep or get rid of them.
If commenting a test out makes it invisible to that process, that'll be
a shame.
I'd prefer to have the test visible and unapproved and described as
"quite probably broken"
or some such in the description. If that's easy to do, please do. No
rush.
Maybe it's easier to just fix the test to just use all integers instead.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:05:13 UTC