Re: algorithm / (pseudo)code for comparing expected vs received resultset

great, thanks Dan. I got stuck at this stage too. Of course I could
use jena.compare or something similar and compare as a RDF graph, but
I'd be interested to try alternatives too.

I've got as far as putting up my squish tests in the manifest and
resultset formats, although I haven't checked them in detail yet:

http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/rdfquery/tests/

Libby

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Dan Brickley wrote:

>
> I'm working to hook up my Rubyrdf code to the query test case machinery[1]
> being drafted here and in the IRC chat series. I'm at the stage where I
> need to compare the expected results (using the format Andy's been
> working on) with the actual bindings I get back from the query system.
>
> This amounts to a need to compare two tables, with columns corresponding
> to the requested variables, and rows for each satisfying binding. We know
> the column headings across the two tables because there is an assumed
> correspondence to variable names. But we don't have any principle for
> ordering the resultset rows (at least for the squish-like languages
> we're using for these initial testcases). The combination of this and the
> inability to compare bNode local IDs across expected vs actual results
> means there is some subtlety involved in using these test cases.
>
> So... I was wondering how others are dealing with this. I was thinking
> I'd go through the result rows, and for each bNode, annotate it with a
> description of it in terms of its relationship to concrete URIs and
> literals in the data structure. That (on a good day) allows the bnode
> bits of each table to be re-labelled consistently, which in turn
> allows the table rows to be compared like-against-like.
>
> This is a variant of the rdf graph comparison problem, but a bit more
> constrained. I'm not sure to what extent it makes sense to try for a
> common approach to both. I guess it depends on the data; lots of
> bnodes makes things hairy...
>
> ramblingly,
>
> dan
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests/
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 09:22:06 UTC