- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:23:28 -0700
- To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
On 07/12/2016 04:45 PM, james anderson wrote: > >> On 2016-07-13, at 00:40, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com >> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 07/06/2016 07:09 AM, james anderson wrote: >>> good afternoon; >>> >>>> On 2016-07-06, at 15:41, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org >>>> <mailto:andy@apache.org> >>>> <mailto:andy@apache.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Peter, >>>> >>>> Would you pleased resend your summary "Thu, 30 Jun 2016 06:05:27 -0700"? >>>> >>>> That's a concrete list place we can use as a starting point for discussing >>>> the scope of the work. >>> >>> it would help to have a list with the content indicated by this mock-up >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-exists/wiki/Examples >>> >>> to lay out the scope in concrete, neutral terms. >>> >>> best regards, from berlin, >>> --- >>> james anderson | james@dydra.com <mailto:james@dydra.com> >>> <mailto:james@dydra.com> | http://dydra.com >>> >>> >> >> I don't see why it would not be better to use a modification of the actual >> SPARQL tests format. My understanding is that this format can be used to >> automatically generate a readable document, as was done to generate >> https://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/summary.html >> >> If more information is needed for a particular test the generator could be >> modified to add that information, or the information could be put in a >> companion document. >> >> I don't see why yet another format is needed. > > the actual format does not matter, so long as it gets all the information into > view. > the current test description does not do that at all and the current summary > layout does it poorly, at best. > the former distributes the information over an arbitrary number of files and > the latter generates a presentation which, while a reference record, is not a > presentation which is suited to be read for comprehension. > > best regards, from berlin, > --- > james anderson | james@dydra.com <mailto:james@dydra.com> | http://dydra.com Aside from not showing the results in-line (which should be easily fixable), I don't see any disadvantages of https://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/summary.html#exists-exists01 over https://github.com/w3c/sparql-exists/wiki/Examples I do see lots of advantages to having the examples in a format that can be directly used to test how SPARQL implementations, though, which I see as a telling point for using the test format. peter
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 00:24:11 UTC