- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:40:03 -0500
- To: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- CC: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>, "birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de" <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <50C745C3.50102@w3.org>
On 12/11/2012 08:54 AM, Chime Ogbuji wrote: > 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. > I agree. I think we're probably okay on RIF tests. More would be nice, but the ease with which SILK was able to pass our tests is very reassuring. -- Sandro > -- > 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 14:40:26 UTC