- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:45:46 -0400
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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