- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:16:05 +0100
- To: <www-archive@w3.org>
Test data: :x :y :z . _:x :y :z . [ :y :z ] . { :p :q :r } :y :z .
The following tests are conducted by merging the rules with the data above,
and then filtering (CWM --filter=f.n3) the file against itself.
The tests:-
--filter: { :x :y :z } => { :x :y :z } .
CWM: :x :y :z .
EepII: <#x> <#y> <#z> .
--filter: { _:x :y :z } => { _:x :y :z } .
CWM: :_gx :y :z .
EepII: _:x <#y> <#z> .
Notes: CWM doesn't output a log:forSome :_gx, which seems inconsistent.
--filter: { _:x :y :z } => { _:y :y :z } .
CWM: :_gy :y :z .
EepII: _:y <#y> <#z> .
Notes: as above.
--filter: { [ :y :z ] } => { [ :y :z ] } .
CWM: [ :y :z ]. [ :y :z ]. [ :y :z ]. [ :y :z ].
EepII: _:thing4 <#y> <#z> .
Notes: I'm not actually sure which one is inconsistent here. CWM is
generating a new node for each descendant, whereas EepII converts the [] to
a _:thing and processes it as usual.
--filter: { { :p :q :r } :y :z } => { { :p :q :r } :y :z } .
CWM: { :p :q :r }:y :z .
EepII: _:formula4 <#y> <#z> .
Notes: EepII serialization problem, there. Note that they both match the
identical formula, but no other bNodes.
--filter { ?x :y :z } => { ?x :y :z } .
CWM: :_g2 :y :z . :_gx :y :z . :x :y :z .
EepII: <#x> <#y> <#z> .
_:x <#y> <#z> .
_:thing3 <#y> <#z> .
_:formula4 <#y> <#z> .
Notes: once again, no quantification from CWM, and a formula serialization
problem for EepII.
--filter { [ ?x ?y ] } => { [ ?x ?y ] } .
CWM: [ :forAll v:x ].
[ :forAll v:y ].
[ :forSome <#_g4> ].
[ :forSome <#_gx> ].
[ <#y> <#z> ].
[ <#y> <#z> ].
[ <#y> <#z> ].
[ <#y> <#z> ].
[ :implies {
[ v:x v:y ].
} ].
EepII: _:thing4 <#y> <#z> .
_:thing4 <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#implies> _:formula3 .
Notes: they both go a bit nuts on this. CWM will actually loop forever
on --think for this test.
--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> .
:Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 11:16:13 UTC