- From: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:54:38 -0500
- To: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Cc: "sandro@w3.org" <sandro@w3.org>, "birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de" <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <F21DDA8FE0F74A82B74E03E54959FE0B@gmail.com>
rif05 is a test involving a built-in that generates new bindings ( External(pred:iri-string(?z ?x)) ). FuXi (which is purely a positive Horn clause interpreter with support for predicates with externally-provided truth values) only supports builtins that evaluate to a boolean value from a set of bindings, so it is not likely that it will pass rif05 next week. Note, as I mentioned a few teleconferences ago, the additional tests were a matter of coverage of RIF Core features and not of of SPARQL 1.1 RIF Entailment, and therefore the difference between integration testing and unit testing. -- Chime Ogbuji Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com) On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote: > I think we should discuss whether we are happy with coverage with these tests. > As Chime reports, we can probably approve > #rif01 > #rif03 > #rif04 > #rif06 > And have 2 implementations passing those. However, we miss #rif02 and #rif05 > > while I understand we can go without rif02 (since it uses rif in RDF which is only a note), > I feel a bit uneasy about going without rif05. Any chance we can have a second implementation > passing rif05 within the next week? > > Best, > Axel > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] > > Sent: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 13:31 > > To: birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de (mailto:birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de) > > Cc: Polleres, Axel; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org (mailto:public-rdf-dawg@w3.org) > > Subject: Re: Minutes from today and Telco Agenda for the next two week > > > > On 12/10/2012 01:59 PM, Birte Glimm wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > we have our institute's Christmas party tomorrow starting at 4pm, but > > > I'll take my MiFi and try to connect from there. If I can't get it to > > > work, I am happy to vote for publishing GSP and Protocol as PR as > > > planned. I hope I manage to vote in person, but just to be sure.... > > > > > > > > > Given the emails from you and Chime about ER tests passing, it looks to > > me like we're ready for ER to go to PR as well. Do you agree, or is > > there something I'm missing? > > > > -- Sandro > > > > > Birte > > > > > > On 4 December 2012 17:10, Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com (mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com)> wrote: > > > > Minutes form today’s Telco are out at > > > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-12-04 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As stated today, next week we aim to vote for GSP and Protocoll and > > > > in two weeks we aim to vote for Entailment. > > > > > > > > The respective Agendas are already online at: > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-12-11 > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-12-18 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comments welcome, if you miss anything there! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Axel
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 13:55:10 UTC