Re: Test cases for approval

Thanks Matt,

just for interest... how about 

 :a :p "1"^^xsd:decimal .
 :a :p "1"^^xsd:integer .

?

Axel

On 2 Mar 2011, at 14:08, Matthew Perry wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> To answer Axel's question about canonicalization, Oracle canonicalizes all xsd-typed literals.
> 
> For example, if you insert:
> :a :p "001"^^xsd:decimal .
> :a :p "01"^^xsd:decimal .
> 
> Only a single triple (:a :p "1"^^xsd:decimal) makes it into the triple store. We maintain information that allows us to recreate the original non-canonicalized triples, but SPARQL queries only match against the canonicalized triples.
> 
> - Matt
> 
> On 3/2/2011 4:36 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > On 1 Mar 2011, at 19:42, Birte Glimm wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 1 March 2011 14:52, Axel Polleres<axel.polleres@deri.org>  wrote:
> >> just looked quickly over those, manual inspection...
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22 Feb 2011, at 16:02, Birte Glimm wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> I ran the following OWL Direct Semantics tests cases and they pass:
> >>> :owlds01 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials
> >> looks ok to me.
> >>
> >>> :owlds02 -- Test: OWL DS bnodes are not existentials with answer
> >> looks ok to me.
> >>
> >>> :plainLit -- Test: Plain literals with language tag are not the same
> >> looks ok to me (but why is this OWL/Entailment specific? It would be, potentially if you asked for
> >> "name"^^xsd:string under D-entailment?)
> >>
> >> Well, another disadvantage of D-entailmen is that the datatype map is not fixed, i.e., there is no guaranee that systems support the same datatypes and one does not have to support rdf:PlainLiteral or even xsd:string, which also makes testing relatively difficult.
> > The lists in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP or http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Symbol_Spaces (or intersection thereof) could be a start?
> >
> >> As I said, I am for removing D-entailment alltogether ;-)
> > I would like this to be discussed at least once more, it seems there is use out there of datatypes - the fact that implementation do canonicalisation is IMO an indication that something should be done about datatypes at least. (We had some earlier discussion about a
> > D$^-$-Entailment a while back, but I think just nobody had time to spend on it.
> >
> > At least I would like to gather once more which implementation does *what* about Datatypes and see whether there's need to standardise that, before we decide to drop it alltogether... but, yes, it's a matter of time as well.
> >
> > Axel
> >>   Birte
> >>
> >>
> >> didn't look into the bind0x tests yet...
> >>
> >> Axel
> >>
> >>> as the same literal without
> >>> :bind01 -- Test: bind01 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> >>> :bind02 -- Test: bind02 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> >>> :bind03 -- Test: bind03 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> >>> :bind04 -- Test: bind04 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> >>> :bind05 -- Test: bind05 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> >>> :bind06 -- Test: bind06 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> >>> :bind07 -- Test: bind07 - BIND fixed data for OWL DL
> >>>
> >>> The bind0x test cases are as for simple entailment, but the input data
> >>> is extended o make it an OWL 2 DL ontology.  The test :plainLit is
> >>> applicable also under OWL 2 RDF Based semantics.
> >>> Birte
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
> >>> Computing Laboratory
> >>> Parks Road
> >>> Oxford
> >>> OX1 3QD
> >>> United Kingdom
> >>> +44 (0)1865 283520
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
> >> Computing Laboratory
> >> Parks Road
> >> Oxford
> >> OX1 3QD
> >> United Kingdom
> >> +44 (0)1865 283520
> >
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:32:05 UTC