Re: another update test added (was: RE: Questions on grammar restrictions on Blank Node reuse across...)

On May 28, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Gregory Williams wrote:

>> So it generates different blanks nodes each time it's read, hence no shared bank node *in creating the results* -- nothing to do with the operation.
> 
> Correct. As I said, and as you describe, the problem is the multiple parsing of the same file into the expected dataset, not in the update evaluation.
> 
>> Hence either specify results in TriG/N_quads (but these are under-defined in this area) or make a conclusion that records the intended result and test for that (my long update request suggestion).
> 
> Yes. I think your proposed solution (inserting the statement count back into the dataset) is the only sensible path forward on this.

I've added a new variant of this test that avoids these bnode issues by actually testing for the underlying issue (that bnode insertion is idempotent). The new test is basic-update/manifest.ttl#insert-05a. Both Andy and I pass it with our implementations.

.greg

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 17:46:12 UTC