- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:38:59 +0000
- To: public-rdf-tests@w3.org
- Message-ID: <01020155623bdf7f-f18838f6-fce4-4eca-9f85-f9d1f1de7c8e-000000@eu-west-1.amazonse>
good morning; > On 2016-06-18, at 01:31, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > EXISTS in SPARQL has quite a number of problems. The substitution that it > is based on results in suspect constructs in the SPARQL algebra and > counter-intuitive results. There are known differences in implementations > of EXISTS for common situations. > > Here are a number of proposed test cases for EXISTS with their current > status as per the SPARQL 1.1 Query specification and with suggestions on > what should be changed to fix EXISTS. I'm willing to transform these into > the syntax of the test case suite if that is going to produce an effect. the general practice has been to fork the repository, implement the tests in a branch and open an issue on the topic. the last perhaps in parallel and/or in connection with a pull request. they should include the dataset content. that way others can take the tests, run them and report on their experience. > However, one problem is that some of the test cases produce internal > constructs that are semantically ill-formed but that do not end up in the > final output. I don't know whether the test suite can describe this > situation. if those would violate some constraint in an internal data model which causes the test to fail, then they would be negative tests. --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2016 06:39:29 UTC