- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:20:28 +0000
- To: Jeen Broekstra <j.broekstra@tue.nl>
- CC: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Jeen Broekstra wrote: > > In http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/ > > you will find: > > - manifest-evaluation.ttl: a 'super-manifest' containing > references to all manifests with query evaluation test cases. > - manifest-syntax.ttl: a 'super-manifest' containing references > to all manifests with query syntax test cases. > > - syntax/ : a directory containing a manifest and a set of files > documenting both positive and negative syntax tests (these are > copies from /data/SyntaxFull/). <#syntax-keywords-01> a mf:PositiveSyntaxTest ; mf:name "keyword FILTER as a namespace prefix" ; mf:action <syntax-keywords-01.rq> . <#syntax-keywords-03> a mf:PositiveSyntaxTest ; mf:name "keyword FILTER as a local name" ; mf:action <syntax-keywords-02.rq> . <#syntax-keywords-03> a mf:PositiveSyntaxTest ; mf:name "keyword UNION as a namespace prefix" ; mf:action <syntax-keywords-03.rq> . That's #syntax-keywords-03 twice and no #syntax-keywords-02 Fixed and committed back to CVS. Andy > - triple-match/ : a directory containing a manifest and a set of > files documenting a few simple query evaluation tests (these are > copies from /data/simple/). > > The manifests have been updated to use URIs for each test (instead of > blank nodes). They currently do not yet contain EricP's annotations but > I guess that can be easily amended. > > Regarding the syntax tests: a few of these I have spotted to be out of > data with respect to the current spec, specifically the following two: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/syntax/manifest#syntax-bnodes-03 > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/syntax/manifest#syntax-bnodes-04 > > (which both deal with blank nodes in a predicate position). Instead of > removing these tests I have relabeled them as negative syntax tests and > have removed the 'dawg:Approved' annotation. > > Before we go into (re)approving any of these tests (both the syntax and > the evaluation tests) I would like a few others to eyeball them and > filter out possible obsoletes. I have ran this set through our SPARQL > engine and have not encountered any glaring errors, but... but ... > > Comments welcome. > > Cheers, > > Jeen > > PS I also made a modest addition to the > DataAccess/test/test-manifest.n3: I've added a QueryEvaluationTest class.
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:20:43 UTC