Re: SPARQL* test suite

On 28/08/2020 10:30, Ruben Taelman wrote:
> Thanks for all the input, it looks like we already have a good head-start for a common test suite in manifest form.
> 
>> We would also need tests for Turtle, and likely N-Triples, so keeping it in the rdf-tests repo makes sense to me. Perhaps with an appropriate manifest tag.
> 
> +1

+1

>>   I fully suspect that we will opening ourselves up to a lot of confusion and conflicting views, as most implementations seem to have very diverging ideas on what RDF*/SPARQL* is (or isn't). But perhaps that's all to the good :)
> 
> I agree that this would be a good thing :-)

To start with, I'd rather focus on what implementations do agree on and 
can share.

> 
>> Maybe everyone here is waiting for Olaf to take more control again, but that's not really his job or responsibility and maybe it's time for the implementers to chose a chair, have a couple of meetings and establish productive processes?
> 
> Good idea. I would suggest waiting a bit to hear Olaf’s view on this.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Ruben Taelman
> 
>> On 28 Aug 2020, at 03:06, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
...

>> I, for one, keep being unimpressed by the Turtle syntax, which ends up becoming quite redundant because depending on the interpretation a triple needs to be stated twice (once for the actual assertion and once for the reifications). We are for now using a syntax such as
>>
>> ex:subject ex:predicate ex:object [[
>>      ex:created "2010-10-10"^^xsd:date ;
>> ]]

Yes, there is room for annotation syntax. Stardog has the annotation 
after the predicate, before the object (guess: to avoid a problem with 
TriG). What happens about object lists?

]] can occur in Turtle data.

Given that {} is used for grouping in TriG and SPARQL:

{%...%}
{|...|}
{!...!}
{{...}}

and some others
and the [%...%] (%...%) forms

The PLX rule in Turtle is not a problem.

     Andy

>>
>> to state both at the same time, and this seems to work better. But in the absence of any formal starting point (such as a respec spec and a proper development process with regular meetings and bug tracker tickets) I guess many implementations will just go with the original syntax or diverge further. Maybe everyone here is waiting for Olaf to take more control again, but that's not really his job or responsibility and maybe it's time for the implementers to chose a chair, have a couple of meetings and establish productive processes?
>>
>> Holger
>>
>>
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 29 August 2020 19:34:37 UTC