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

> Correction:
>
> (2 separate read actions -> different bNodes -> can't be shared).
>
>       Andy

So, doesn't this confirm my assumption that 05 and 05a essentially test the same thing?

> > The problem with 05 is that the results do not sufficient constrain
> > the results to ensure the test does indeed test for the
> shared bnode.

The test case doesn't test *shared* bnodes, but equivalence,
G1 and G2 are two different graphs.

Greg, any opinion on that?

Best,
Axel

--
Dr. Axel Polleres
Siemens AG Österreich
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies
CT T CEE

Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 5:56 PM
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: another update test added (was: RE: Questions on
> grammar restrictions on Blank Node reuse across...)
>
>
>
> On 03/07/12 16:47, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 03/07/12 16:31, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> >> Addressing ACTION-656 and ACTION-642 (which are the same, I just
> >> noticed...)
> >>
> >> When looking at
> >>
> >>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/i
> >> nsert-05a.ru
> >>
> >> vs.
> >>
> >>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/i
> >> nsert-05.ru
> >>
> >>
> >> I ask myself the following:
> >>
> >> In
> >>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html#updateevaltests
> >> we write:
> >>
> >>    "A SPARQL implementation passes a update evaluation test if the
> >> graphs in the graph store are equivalent [RDF-CONCEPTS] to
> the graphs
> >> denoted in the mf:action property (and mf:result property,
> >> respectively) prior to the update execution (after update
> execution,
> >> respectively). Equivalence can be tested as described
> above for query
> >> evaluation tests."
> >>
> >> Which, in my understanding, means that a test case that passes
> >>
> >>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/i
> >> nsert-05a.ru
> >>
> >> also passes
> >>
> >>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/i
> >> nsert-05.ru
> >>
> >> doesn't it? (since insert-05-g1-pre.ttl is graph equivalent to any
> >> other graph using diferent blank node labels. Right?
> >>
> >> Thus, if I got that right, my suggestion would be to keep
> >>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/i
> >> nsert-05.ru (and probably add a reference to this email in the
> >> description)
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Axel
> >>
> >> P.s.: note that the exact wording in
> >>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html#updateevaltests
> >> slightly differs at the moment... Some superfluous closing
> >> parenthesis, essentially, only editorial. Will fix this
> when I have
> >> access to CVS again.
> >>
> >
> > The problem with 05 is that the results do not sufficient constrain
> > the results to ensure the test does indeed test for the
> shared bnode.
> >
> > Each result graph is read in separately, generating bnodes.
> >
> > But the test is aimed at showing a sharing, which is not
> possible to
> > record by defining the graphs to read from file 92 separate read
> > actions
> > -> different bNodes).
>
> Correction:
>
> (2 separate read actions -> different bNodes -> can't be shared).
>
>       Andy
>
> >
> > 05a solves this by adding an INSERT that works on the state of the
> > graphs to record the result. It counts the triples and gets one
> > showing the two inserts were the same triple, not different ones.
> > Then it records the count in :g3, removes the troublesome g1 and g2
> > then we can test for the state of g3.
> >
> >      Andy
> >
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 08:32:09 UTC