Re: CSV/TSV results test cases and suggested adaption of JSON results test cases

On 7 Aug 2011, at 20:50, Gregory Williams wrote:

> On Aug 7, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> 
> > 1) I added (my understanding of) what CSV and TSV test cases should return in
> >
> >  http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/
> >
> > the test cases are:
> >
> >   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#csv01
> >   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#tsv01
> >   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#csv01
> >   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#tsv02
> >
> > these haven't been produced automatically, so please check.
> 
> All of these use the SELECT * form. If the variables happen to be projected in a different order than the one assumed in the csv/tsv result files, should the tests fail?

Well, good point, I'd say! In http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/ it says:

"The order of the variable names in the sequence is the order of the variable names given to the argument of the SELECT statement in the SPARQL query. If SELECT * is used, the order of the names is undefined."

Likewise, for json, there's a sentence in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/json-results/json-results-lc.html:
"The order of variable names should correspond to the variables in the SELECT clause of the query, unless the query is of the form SELECT * in which case order is not significant.

However, I realize that there is no respective remark (I guess it should be the same for CVS and TSV) in 
 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/csv-tsv-results/results-csv-tsv.html

Can/shall we change that for this pub round still? Opinions?

> > 2) this brought me to some ommission in the json-res test cases ... where I
> ...
> > (note that I alsoe renamed the output files from .srj to .json).
> 
> Why?

Hmmm, ouch - confused, I thought I remembered that someone mentioned that .json was the standard suffix for JSON files and this should be changed, but actually it the discussion was the other way around [1]..... aaaargh. Sorry & thanks, changed back to ".srj" .

Should ".csv" and ".tsv" then remain as is, or o we want an own suffix there as well (such as e.g. ".src" and ".srt" )

Axel

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0173.html
> 
> thanks,
> .greg
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 7 August 2011 19:44:14 UTC