- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:53:41 +0000
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I was trying to look into/track test cases ready to approve prior to the conf. call, but didn't yet get very far in my investigations... Let me try, ordered by subdirectories of http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/ to start off with this email on the aggregates test cases: 1) aggregates: Test case: :agg-avg-01 :agg-avg-02 :agg-max-01 :agg-max-02 :agg-min-01 :agg-min-02 :agg-sample-01 :agg-sum-01 :agg-sum-02 posted originally by Greg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0375.html :agg-avg-02, :agg-sum-02, seem to have caused some discussion about precision of results, encoding of exponent "e" vs "E" between Greg and Andy, is that solved? :agg01 :agg02 :agg03 :agg04 :agg05 :agg06 :agg07 where PROPOSED to be approved in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-08-24#test_cases modulo ACTION-300 and ACTION-301, only ACTION ACTION-301 on steve is pending here... Steve can you have a look? :agg08 ... my memories not really very fresh here, but as I read the current version of rq25.xml, we finally went against projection of GROUPED BY expressions, in the current 11.4 Aggregate Projection Restrictions seems to reflect this. Accordingly, Option 1: either we change :agg08 to a NegativeSyntaxTest, Option 2: or fix it as follows: PREFIX : <http://www.example.org/> SELECT ?O12 (COUNT(?O1) AS ?C) WHERE { ?S :p ?O1; :q ?O2 } GROUP BY ((?O1 + ?O2) AS ?O12) ORDER BY ?O12 Option 3: do both, i.e. add Option 2 as agg08b :agg09 :agg10 :agg11 :agg12 ... are all negative syntax tests an look ok to me as such. more to follow
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 14:55:19 UTC