- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:34:14 +0100
- To: Jeen Broekstra <j.broekstra@tue.nl>
- Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <20070109143414.GA8799@w3.org>
* Jeen Broekstra <j.broekstra@tue.nl> [2007-01-08 12:53+0100] > > > 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/). > - 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. attached is the output of running the scannar on *.rq in those dirs. > 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: I started out characterizing a class of syntax tests and data tests. I noticed that almost every data test rendered a syntax redundant. I think we only need syntax tests when we: (A) discover a whole in our coverage that we don't feel compelled to write an actual data test (B) *can't* test something (so far, I've identified DESCRIBE as needing this, if we want to bother testing it at all (which I don't)). > 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... > > Comments welcome. > > Cheers, > > Jeen > > PS I also made a modest addition to the > DataAccess/test/test-manifest.n3: I've added a QueryEvaluationTest class. > -- > Dr. Jeen Broekstra Den Dolech 2 > Information Systems Group HG 7.76 > Department of Mathematics and Computer Science P.O. Box 513 > Technische Universiteit Eindhoven 5600 MB Eindhoven > tel. +31 (0)40 247 36 86 The Netherlands -- -eric office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA cell: +1.857.222.5741 (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution.
Attachments
- text/plain attachment: scanTests facets.ttl data-r2/{triple-match,syntax}/*.rq
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:35:32 UTC