- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:03:53 -0500
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: >> I think the issue here is that it sounds like the test suite isn't currently covering enough cases to reveal the differences in the implementations that JP-5 mentions. We should make sure we agree with the semantics in the test case JP-5 proposes, and then add it to the test suite (along with any other tests we can think of that might cover un-tested parts of the path semantics). >> > > A minimum to address the comment would be to add the example JP-5 proposes as a test case, yes? Or do you have the feeling that further ones are needed? I believe there are more cases where path semantics aren't being fully tested. .greg
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 16:04:26 UTC