Re: Re: New tests to cover missing algebraic forms

It appears that Lee has updated several of these tests. I now pass
them all:

┌───────────────────────────────────────────┬────────┬─────────┐
│                                       name│  result│    error│
├───────────────────────────────────────────┼────────┼─────────┤
│"Join operator with OPTs, BGPs, and UNIONs"│"passed"│!unbound!│
│       "Join operator with Graph and Union"│"passed"│!unbound!│
└───────────────────────────────────────────┴────────┴─────────┘
┌───────────────────────────────┬────────┬─────────┐
│                           name│  result│    error│
├───────────────────────────────┼────────┼─────────┤
│"Complex optional semantics: 1"│"passed"│!unbound!│
│"Complex optional semantics: 2"│"passed"│!unbound!│
│"Complex optional semantics: 3"│"passed"│!unbound!│
│"Complex optional semantics: 4"│"passed"│!unbound!│
└───────────────────────────────┴────────┴─────────┘


* Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> [2007-08-14 10:20-0400]
>
> Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> * Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> [2007-08-13 15:31-0400]
>>> Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>>>> Per my ACTION, I've added 6 new tests to cover *some* common, missing
>>>> algebraic forms.  4 were added to data-r2/optional and 2 were added to
>>>> data-r2/algebra.  Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you consider
>>>> uncovering untested bugs a good thing), RDFLib does *not* pass any of
>>>> these tests.  I've gone over them several times to verify the expected
>>>> results.  At the very least the data, queries, and results are
>>>> well-formed (no parsing compliants).  
>>> Thanks, Chimezie.
>>>
>>> I added a trailing period to algebra/join-combo-graph-2.ttl and to 
>>> optional/complex-data-1.ttl and to optional/result-complex*.ttl to get 
>>> the parser I'm using to be happy. I also removed a stray " from a 
>>> namespace declaration in result-opt-complex-2.ttl .
>>>
>>>> The new tests are:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/algebra/manifest#join-combo-1
>>>> Algebra form: Join(LeftJoin(BGP(..),{..}),Join(BGP(..),Union(..,..)))
>>>> Comment: Tests nested combination of Join with a BGP / OPT and a BGP /
>>>> UNION
>>>> PREFIX :    <http://example/>
>>>> SELECT ?a ?y ?d ?z
>>>> {     ?a :p ?c OPTIONAL { ?a :r ?d }.     ?a ?p 1 { ?p a ?y } UNION { ?a 
>>>> ?z ?p } }
>>> The result set here has two bindings for ?y. I'm guessing that one (the 
>>> one bound to a literal) should be ?d but even then I don't think I'd 
>>> agree with the test. Does the test assume RDF entailment (specifically 
>>> knowing that if :a :b :c then :b a rdf:Property)?
>> algae fails this test with the following graph differences:
>>   - 
>> <http://example/x1>|NULL|NULL|"4"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer> 
>>                                                  |
>>   + 
>> <http://example/x1>|NULL|"4"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer>|<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property>"|
>> meaning algae misses a solution (-) and finds one (+) for which there
>> is no corresponding solution in the reference graph.
>
> Eric and I both pass this one with the result set fix. Checking it in...
>
> (Not sure why I thought otherwise, must have misread the test. Apologies).
>
> Lee

-- 
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
mobile: +1.617.599.3509

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.