RE: Draft response JP-5 & test case pp37 for approval

Hi Andy,

>> I have drafted a response to JP-5, cf.
>>     http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JP-5
>
> I'm confused.
> LeeF:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0003.html
> 
> Acknowledgement:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0014.html

That one was on JP-4, but JP-5 was another comment on implementations which was as far as I can tell still open.

> I've fixed the manifest (added a test name).
>
> ARQ passes this test.

Thanks!

best,
Axel

________________________________________
From: Andy Seaborne [andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 9:57 AM
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Draft response JP-5 & test case pp37 for approval

On 01/05/12 08:48, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> In order to close off the comments section upto Feb2012, cf. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments#Last_Call_.28to_Feb_2012.29
> I have drafted a response to JP-5, cf.
>     http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JP-5

I'm confused.

LeeF:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0003.html

Acknowledgement:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0014.html

> In the course of this, I have added the suggested example to the test suite as
>     http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/property-path/pp37.rq
> which I'd kindly ask for approval/cross-checking (I haven't yet tested it with a running implementation, but it's the behaviour I assume valid with the new semantics of "*".
>

I've fixed the manifest (added a test name).

ARQ passes this test.

        Andy

> best,
> Axel
>
> BTW: I found a use case http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/property-path/pp36.rq in that directory, which is not part of the manifest.
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 08:04:48 UTC