- 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