examples format

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