Re: REDUCED tests

Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
> Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>> I added the following tests.
>>>
>>> syntax-sparql5/manifest#syntax-reduced-01
>>> syntax-sparql5/manifest#syntax-reduced-02
>>
>> ARQ passes the syntax tests.

Great.

>>
>>>
>>> reduced/manifest#reduced-1
>>> reduced/manifest#reduced-2
>>> The latter two are rdf:type'd as both mf:QueryEvaluationTest
> 
> ARQ now passes these tests.

Great.

Can anyone else try these tests out and report results, please?

>> Some people may find it a nuisance to have two types on a test.  Maybe 
>> a qualifier would be better in the style of requirements and notable 
>> features.

A nuisance? That didn't occur to me - why is that? (I don't have a 
strong feeling for how to model it, so I'm happy to change it.)

>> My plan at the moment is to ignore this and ask the query if it is a 
>> REDUCED syntax query.
> 
> My testing approach is to turn both query answers and test results into 
> unique forms and compare.  This does not catch an implementation of 
> REDUCED that introduces new, extra duplicates.

I'll pretend I didn't hear that...

Lee

>>
>>  > and also as
>>> mf:ReducedCardinalityTest. The intended semantics of the latter is:
>>>
>>> + The given mf:result for a mf:ReducedCardinalityTest is the results 
>>> as if the REDUCED keyword were omitted. To pass a 
>>> mf:ReducedCardinalityTest, an implementation must produce a result 
>>> set with each solution in the expected results appearing at least 
>>> once and no more than the number of times it appears in the expected 
>>> results. Of course, there must also be no results produced that are 
>>> not in the expected results.
> 
>     Andy
>

Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 18:21:19 UTC