- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:42:35 +0100
- To: ogbujic@ccf.org
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 18:42 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: >> This is not intended to be a complete coverage. If there are specific other >> areas for the algebra that people would like covered, please say so. Or >> supply additional tests! > > FYI: I was hoping that with a mechanism to determine what SPARQL Algebra > coverage we have currently (by evaluating XPath expressions on the parse > trees as XML - per EricP's suggestion) we would know (for certain) the > Algebra 'forms' that are not covered and so additional tests can be > easily constructed for these 'forms'. > Checking the coverage would be very good. What does the evaluation process say about the tests I have just checked in? They are clearly not complete but it would be good to know where concentrate next. The tests are actually ones I already had, written to test the differences between the old-style evaluation and the algebra. This is primarily to do with order of evaluation and scoping. Andy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 08:42:55 UTC