- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:12:06 -0400
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 6/21/2011 11:18 AM, Gregory Williams wrote: > On Jun 21, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I updated the manifest.ttl in the service tests using Greg's >> proposal for action 482. > > I have a question about test :service6. The manifest has this: > > :service6 rdf:type mf:QueryEvaluationTest ; mf:name "SERVICE test > 6" ; dawgt:approval dawgt:NotClassified ; mf:requires > mf:BasicFederation ; mf:action [ qt:query<service06.rq> ; > qt:data<data06.ttl> ; qt:serviceData [ > qt:endpoint<http://example1.org/sparql> ; > qt:data<data06endpoint1.ttl> ] ; qt:serviceData [ > qt:endpoint<http://invalid.endpoint.org/sparql> ; qt:data "" ] ] > ; mf:result<service06.srx> . > > I'm not sure how I'm meant to interpret the string literal value for > qt:data on the "invalid" endpoint. Since this test seems to be > testing the SERVICE SILENT operation (for endpoints that don't exist > or don't respond), I'd prefer some more explicit way to indicate > that<http://invalid.endpoint.org/sparql> is an endpoint mentioned in > the query but that it is intended for that endpoint to not actually > exist (for the purposes of the test). > > As it is now, I'd think the two reasonable interpretations of { > :service6 qt:data "" } would be to either throw an error (expecting > an IRI for the data but finding a literal), or ignoring the literal > and setting up a mock endpoint at that address with no data in it. > Neither of these will result in the expected behavior. > > I think the best way forward would either be to come up with some new > syntax for indicating an endpoint that is used in the query but that > is not meant to participate in query evaluation, or two simply remove > that serviceData block and let the test harness notice that the query > mentions an endpoint that wasn't described in the manifest. Agreed. I prefer the 2nd option -- just leave out that endpoint from the manifest. Lee > > Thoughts? > > thanks, .greg > > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 17:12:45 UTC