Re: book-keeping & suggesting some PROPOSALs to approve per email

On 19/12/12 04:40, Gregory Williams wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2012, at 5:29 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>
>> PROPOSED: approve editorial fix in query as per
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012OctDec/0210.html
>>
>>
PROPOSED: approve editorial fix in Overview as per 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012OctDec/0209.html
>
> Do we need a resolution on editorial fixes? I support these, but FYI
> made an editorial change also to SD based on the recent comment
> (removing an unused prefix definition in the example SDs).
>
>> PROPOSED: remove all unapproved test cases from the manifests (and
>> move them to a separate folder for “unapproved” test cases)
>
> I support removing them, but don't think it's a good idea to move
> them into an "unapproved" folder. There's quite a bit of cruft in the
> manifests, but most of it isn't "unapproved." Does "unapproved" mean
> we never got around to approving it (like the 2 rif tests)? Or ones
> that we retracted after first approving (like the pname escaping
> test)? Tests like the pname escaping test are obviously wrong and
> should simply be removed. I've attached a patch to the manifests that
> I'd like to commit that does this.

I agree - from last time, having a set of test that is clearly and
simply exactly the approved tests is what people look for.

I haven't checked the patch in detail - I did produce a list of linked 
tests for comparison (see below).

	Andy

> I'd be OK with moving the two un-approved rif tests into an
> "unapproved" folder.
>
> The only other test I'm not sure about is
> negation/manifest#temporal-proximity-by-exclusion-minus-1 which is
> commented out of the negation manifest list, but the test data is in
> the manifest file (not commented out) and marked as having been
> approved on 2012-01-31. Did we retract it at some point?
>
>> p.s.: this does not yet contain any proposal on how to proceed with
>> the comment we got on the protocol validator,
>> cf.http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Dec/0006.html
>> ... hope this will sorty out per email, if someone more swapped in
>> could take care, it’d be appreciated!
>
> I don't think this is a problem, as I mentioned in email to Rob and
> the list.
>
> .greg
>

I found (with SPARQL!) the following query and update tests not linked
to from the manifest list:

basic-update/manifest#insert-05
entailment/manifest#rif06
entailment/manifest#rif03
entailment/manifest#rif05
entailment/manifest#rif04
functions/manifest#strafter01
functions/manifest#strbefore01
grouping/manifest#group02
negation/manifest#temporal-proximity-by-exclusion-minus-1
property-path/manifest#pp26
property-path/manifest#pp29
property-path/manifest#pp20
property-path/manifest#pp04
property-path/manifest#pp05
property-path/manifest#pp24
property-path/manifest#pp22
property-path/manifest#pp15
property-path/manifest#pp13
property-path/manifest#pp27
syntax-query/manifest#test_52

with

prefix rdf:    <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>
prefix rdfs:	<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>
prefix mf:     <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/test-manifest#>
prefix qt:     <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/test-query#>

SELECT (strafter(str(?x), 'data-sparql11/') AS ?test)
{
     ?x a ?t
     FILTER(?t IN (mf:QueryEvaluationTest, mf:UpdateEvaluationTest,
                   mf:NegativeSyntaxTest11,mf:PositiveSyntaxTest11,
                   mf:NegativeUpdateSyntaxTest11,
                   mf:PositiveUpdateSyntaxTest11,
                   mf:CSVResultFormatTest) )
     FILTER NOT EXISTS {?m rdf:first ?x}
}

and CSV output and  | head -n +2

Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 19:04:33 UTC