- From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:34:32 +0200
- To: "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Summarizing the missing parts on my end: 1) > > >> * adapt editorial suggestion 1) as above in Update > > > > (not done - in the update doc) Done, cf. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#insertData 2) > > >> * Reply to Rob that shared blank nodes across > > QuadPatterns within > > >> the same insert are allowed and > > >> behave as per test case basic-update/manifest#insert-05a > > > > > > Yes > > > > (This needs to be done.) Response drafted at: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:RV-10 pending approval of test case :insert-data-same-bnode as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JulSep/0208.html (could not yet commit to CVS) Axel > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com] > > Sent: Freitag, 21. September 2012 12:00 > > To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > > Subject: Re: FW: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases > > > > Parts relating to editing of rq25 done. > > > > Andy > > > > On 20/09/12 09:27, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > > > >> Summarizing, unless anybody disagrees, I suggest the following: > > >> > > >> * adapt editorial suggestion 1) as above in Update > > > > (not done - in the update doc) > > > > >> * amend remark 10 in > > >> > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#sparqlGrammar > > >> as suggested above in 2) > > > > > > Yes > > > > Done > > > > (longer form used that mentions query and update) > > > > > > > >> * Reply to Rob that shared blank nodes across > > QuadPatterns within > > >> the same insert are allowed and > > >> behave as per test case basic-update/manifest#insert-05a > > > > > > Yes > > > > (This needs to be done.) > > > > > > > >> * Optionally, we could add a variant of > > >> basic-update/manifest#insert-05a to the test > > >> suite that explicitly covers Rob's example. > > > > > > OK. > > > But we than need to let everyone that has submitted test > > results about > > > the change. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think adding a brief note on id scoping is in order as > > well: Expand > > > 19.6 with > > > > > > """ > > > Blank node labels are scoped to the request in which they occur. > > > Use of the the same label referrers to the same blank node. Blank > > > nodes and fresh blank nodes are generatedA blank label can > > be used for > > > each request; blank nodes can not be referenced by label across > > > documents (requests) > > > > > > Additionally, the same blank node can not be used in two > different > > > basic graph patterns in a SPARQL Query or a SPARQL Update > > pattern (the > > > WHERE clause). > > > > > > The same blank node can occur in different QuadData and > QuadPattern > > > clauses. > > > """ > > > > Done - with link as suggested by Axel. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Axel > > >> > > >> > > >> 1. > > >> > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0163.h > > >> tml > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> > > >> From: Rob Vesse [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org] > > >> Sent: Mittwoch, 19. September 2012 20:03 > > >> To: Polleres, Axel > > >> Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > > >> Subject: Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes of course you can forward to the list, I will CC this > > to the list > > >> myself > > >> > > >> Rob > > >> > > >> From: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com> > > >> Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:39 AM > > >> To: Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org> > > >> Subject: RE: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi Rob, > > >> > > >> I realiszed that I sent this to you only offlist. > > Hope it is > > >> ok for you if I fwd your suggestions with the WG list? > > >> > > >> thanks, > > >> Axel > > >> > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> > > >> From: Rob Vesse [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org] > > >> Sent: Dienstag, 18. September 2012 18:05 > > >> To: Polleres, Axel > > >> Subject: Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test > > >> Cases > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi Axel > > >> > > >> Perhaps if the group were to amending the > > following > > >> text from 3.1.1 INSERT DATA > > >> > > >> Variables in QuadDatas are disallowed in > > INSERT DATA > > >> requests (see Notes 8 in the grammar > > >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#sparqlGrammar> ). > > That is, the > > >> INSERT DATA statement only allows to insert ground > triples. Blank > > >> nodes in QuadDatas are assumed to be disjoint from the > > blank nodes in > > >> the Graph Store, i.e., will be inserted with "fresh" blank nodes. > > >> > > >> > > >> And add additional text something like > > the following: > > >> > > >> > > >> Per Note 10 in the grammar blank node > identifiers > > >> may be reused across graph blocks in QuadData but users > > should note > > >> that distinct fresh blank nodes will be generated for each > > usage in > > >> each block. > > >> > > >> > > >> That's a little clunky but I'm sure the > > WG can come > > >> up with something a little more flowing that gets the > > clarification > > >> across, it's primarily just a case of referring back to > > that note in > > >> the main query document. > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Rob > > >> > > >> From: "Polleres, Axel" > > >> <axel.polleres@siemens.com> > > >> Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:48 AM > > >> To: Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org> > > >> Subject: RE: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test > > >> Cases > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi Rob, > > >> > > >> Would you have a specific editorial > > >> suggestion for a respective explaining text which we could > > add to the > > >> Update document? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Axel > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> > > >> From: Rob Vesse > > >> [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org] > > >> Sent: Freitag, 14. > > September 2012 17:46 > > >> To: Polleres, Axel; > > >> public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > > >> Subject: Re: Further comment on > > >> SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi Axel > > >> > > >> Yes this answers my specific > > >> question but I still think it may be worth the group adding some > > >> clarifying text to the specification to make the > distinction clear > > >> > > >> Rob > > >> > > >> > > From: > > >> "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com> > > >> Date: Thursday, > September 13, 2012 > > >> 11:01 PM > > >> To: Rob Vesse > > >> <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" > > <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org> > > >> Subject: RE: Further comment on > > >> SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi Rob, > > >> > > >> (note that this > is not a > > >> formal reply, but just quickly:) > > >> > > >> > 2 - The > > restriction does > > >> not apply to updates > > >> > > >> holds. > > >> > > >> SPARQL1.0 forbade (and > > >> SPARQL1.1 still forbids this blank nodes to be shared > > across BGPs, cf. > > >> > > >> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#grammarBNodeLabels > > >> > > >> The group didn't see a > > >> reason to put this restriction on QuadPatterns in the head of > > >> DELETE/INSERT statements in Update (which are different > > from BGPs in the WHERE clause). > > >> > > >> Hope this > > clarifies matters, > > >> pleases let us know if this answers your request or > > whether you still > > >> expect a formal group reply, > > >> > > >> Axel > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> > > >> From: Rob Vesse > > >> [mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org] > > >> Sent: Freitag, > > 14. September > > >> 2012 01:39 > > >> To: > > >> public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > > >> Subject: Further > > comment on > > >> SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases > > >> > > >> > > >> I am working > > towards getting > > >> dotNetRDF back to as close to 100% compliance with the > > current state > > >> of the SPARQL 1.1 Query and Update specifications as > possible and > > >> have run into one test case which is confusing to me > > because it seems > > >> as odd with SPARQL 1.0 behavior. > > >> > > >> This is > > syntax-update-53.ru: > > >> > > >> > > >> PREFIX : > > >> <http://www.example.org/> > > >> INSERT DATA { > > >> > GRAPH<g1> { > > >> _:b1 :p :o } > > >> > GRAPH<g2> { > > >> _:b1 :p :o } > > >> } > > >> Currently my > > implementation > > >> rejects this on the grounds that the same blank node is > reused in > > >> different graph patterns. It was my understanding that the 1.0 > > >> specification forbade this and there are in fact a > > selection of 1.0 > > >> tests that specifically check that a parser rejects such queries. > > >> So I assume one > of three > > >> things must be true: > > >> 1 - This > restriction has > > >> been removed in SPARQL 1.1 (if so where does the spec > state this?) > > >> 2 - The > > restriction does not > > >> apply to updates > > >> 3 - The test case > > is incorrect > > >> I would appreciate some > > >> feedback on this specific test case but also that the > > working group > > >> would please make sure the test suite is all up to date > > and accurate > > >> (sorry to complain yet about this yet again but it > really makes it > > >> hard to check an implementation if you have to check for > > each failing > > >> test whether the test case is actually correct) > > >> Rob > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 09:36:58 UTC