- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:25:04 +0000
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
comments: > ==> This was not supported in the test case vocabulary as is. The only > SPARQL 1.0 feature that would need this would be REDUCED, I suppose. We > handled this via (from the README): Isn't the same true for LIMIT/OFFSET without a fully deterministic ORDER BY clause? > * Organisation of test cases: Shall we do separate manifests per > feature? etc. > > ==> Yes, I think this makes sense. I think we could just start with the people assigned actions to collect initial test cases to come up with a first version of a manifest for their "category" and ideally maintain their test cases, or should we rather have 1-2 designated test cases editors/maintainers? As for the EARL tools and reports, we should check (with some deadline) if anyone has alternatives to offer, and decide soon what framework we use. > ...hope this is helpful... very much so! Axel On 25 Mar 2010, at 04:33, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > I've seen a few requests for an overview of the test setup from the > first SPARQL working group (DAWG). I guess I know enough about it to > volunteer. > > SPARQL 1.0 tested 2 things: query & protocol. > > == SPARQL 1.0 Query Testing == > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/README.html gives the overall > structure of the tests. To answer Axel's questions: > > * How were the test cases collected in DAWG? Any naming conventions you > followed? > > ==> The tests were grouped into directories within > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/ . There was no > particular naming convention followed, other than the manifest file > within each directory being named manifest.ttl > > * Did anyone do some scripts to provide the manifests for testcases in > DAWG or were these all assembled manually? > > ==> Manifests were assembled and maintained manually. > > * Also, is it possible to have alternative results? (for > non-deterministic queries, e.g. sample) in the test format of DAWG? > > ==> This was not supported in the test case vocabulary as is. The only > SPARQL 1.0 feature that would need this would be REDUCED, I suppose. We > handled this via (from the README): > > """ > Query evaluation tests that involve the REDUCED keyword have slightly > different passing criteria. These tests are indicated in the manifest > files with the mf:resultCardinality predicate with an object of > mf:LaxCardinality. To pass such a test, the result set produced by a > SPARQL implementation must contain each solution in the expected result > set at least once and no more than the number of times that the solution > occurs in the expected result set. (That is, the expected result set > contains the solutions with cardinalities as they would be if the query > did not contain REDUCED; to pass the test, an implementation must > produce the correct results with cardinalities between one and the > cardainlity in the expected result set.) > """ > * Organisation of test cases: Shall we do separate manifests per > feature? etc. > > ==> Yes, I think this makes sense. > > I have a perl script lying around that generates this sort of overview > document (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/r2) from the super > manifest (manifest of manifests) and the individual manifests by doing a > few SPARQL queries. > > === Results === > > We collected results via EARL as documented here: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/earl > > We did _not_ provide a harness to run the tests or generate results. > Implementers provided their own results. > > We had a tool chain courtesy of EricP that parsed the EARL and populated > -- I think -- a mysql DB with the results, which was then used to > generate the output reports at > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/impl-report-ql > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/implementations > > At one point in my life I think I knew how to use this tool chain, but > I'll have to work to resuscitate that knowledge if we choose to use it. > It relies on tests being associated with 'facets' being tested, in order > to assign a score for how complete each implementation is for each facet. > > == SPARQL 1.0 Protocol Testing == > > Elias Torres created a harness for performing the protocol tests. If I > recall correctly, the tests were mainly based on the examples in the > protocol specification. The tools are here: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-tests/tools/ > > ...but I don't remember much about how to use them. Basically, we > pointed the tools at a SPARQL endpoint and it spit out result files > which -- again, I think -- we manually compiled into the implementation > report here: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/impl-report-protocol > > > > ...hope this is helpful... > > Lee > > >
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 09:25:45 UTC