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

To avoid responding to all the messages along the way, I'll just summarize by saying that I agree with everything Andy has said in this thread. Implementations *should* be failing test 05, which is the reason I suggested 05a (which I believe they should be passing). It sounds like we should update the text in the test read me, because if that text indicates that implementations should be passing 05, I think it's not doing the job its intended for.

.greg

On Jul 10, 2012, at 9:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 
> 
> On 10/07/12 14:19, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>> 
>> Hia again,
>> 
>>> Does not change anything.  It does not create a shared bNode.
>> 
>> I don't want to test shared bnodes
> 
> The reason the test was put in was to capture the fact that it is the same bnode and not a renaming apart of nodes from the graph on an INSERT.
> 
> It matters for stores that can have one graph as a subgraph of another.
> 
>> , because - as I think you agree -  this is not
>> expressible. I want to approximate this (just as 05a tries to approximate this).
>> I think that insert-05 is a closer approximation than insert-05a, that's why
>> I prefer to have 05 in.
> 
> I do not agree - 05 is not a close approximate because in the test tests there are two bnodes, one in g1 and one in g2 and they are different.
> 
> You have not replied to my point that 05 is wrong and is only passable because of the specific definition in the test description, nothing to do with SPARQL itself. 05 is wrong because, by definition of RDF parsing, the test results must be different bNodes.
> 
> A better definition in the test description based on dataset bnode isomorphism, would *require* a fail of test 05.
> 
> We could write a stronger 05b but at least 05a will work for dataset bnode isomorphism and 05 will fail at that point.
> 
> 	Andy
> 
>> 
>> Hope that clarifies matters,
> >
>> Axel
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 13:44:32 UTC