Re: Question on ACTION-274: Draft some extra bit for federated query tests manifest vocabulary plus example.

On 20/01/11 17:05, Axel Polleres wrote:
> Just to make clear, what I suggested is to not necessarily have a full SPARQL endpoint up, but just some pre-canned responses to
> precanned HTTP requests for the test cases. (that would be even simpler than guaranteeing to maintain and run a fully-fledged
> SPARQL endpoint that can be used for evaluating the test cases on one of W3C's servers)
>
> Opinions?

Probably a good way to do it although I've been running a public SPARQL 
endpoint with a very small amount of data.  It runs an EC2 small 
instance so it's hardly a lot of hardware.

One thing to watch - there is no guarantee exactly what remote queries 
are made unless the test is carefully written to have only one possible 
(reasonable) execution strategy.

There's no guarantees how BINDINGS might be used.

	Andy

>
> Axel
>
>
> On 20 Jan 2011, at 17:01, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:
>
>>    For me that works, I already have some test endpoints with dummy data
>> for these purposes. It would be easy to place that data in SPARQL endpoints.
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>> On 20/01/2011 10:48, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> Hi Carlos, Sandro,
>>>
>>> I am a bit lost with that...
>>> I remember we had some discussion internally about that, e.g. providing a dedicated "endpoint" responding to specific queries in a certain way...
>>> That could be done by providing some hard-coded "dummy" endpoint that responds to a couple of specific HTTP encoded SPARQL queries which we use in the test cases with the respective SPARQL-result.
>>>
>>> If we had that, I believe, we wouldn't need to specify any extra vocabulary for the test cases for fed query, the only thing is to get some URIs like e.g.
>>>
>>>      http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/endpoint1?query=SELECT+*+WHERE+{%3FS+%3FP+%3FO+}
>>>
>>> to serve some specified results. Would that do?
>>>
>>> Axel
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:56:43 UTC