Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases

Axel Polleres-4
Hi Rob,

This is a joint response to

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0024.html

and

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0025.html

First of all, thanks for your concrete editorial suggestions! We have implemented them as follows:

1) We have adapted your editorial suggestion in Update:

--------------------------
Variables in QuadDatas are disallowed in INSERT DATA requests
(see Note 8 in the grammar). That is, the INSERT DATA statement
only allows to insert ground triples. Blank nodes in QuadData
are assumed to be disjoint from the blank nodes in the Graph Store,
i.e., will be inserted with "fresh"  blank nodes.
--------------------------

2) We have edited Note 10. in the Grammar

   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#sparqlGrammar

and collected all issues about blank node usage in update and query requests in one place in section

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#grammarBNodes

now.

Please note that the further text you proposes, namely

"users should note that distinct fresh blank nodes will be generated for each usage in each block."

disagrees with what we had discussed in thread [1], that is, shared blank nodes across QuadPatterns within the same INSERT DATA operation are allowed and behave similar as in test case http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/manifest#insert-05a. The group is currently discussing adding more test cases making the intended behavior more explicit.

We hope this answers your concerns and would appreciate a response to the list acknowledging this.

Thanks, Axel, on behalf of the SPARQL WG.

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0163.html



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases

Rob Vesse
Hi Axel

Yes I like what the working group have done, the new section of text
improves things greatly and the new tests are important in helping
implementers understand the spec

This response does address my comments

Thanks,

Rob Vesse

On 10/5/12 9:22 PM, "Axel Polleres" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi Rob,
>
>This is a joint response to
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0024.
>html
>
>and
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0025.
>html
>
>First of all, thanks for your concrete editorial suggestions! We have
>implemented them as follows:
>
>1) We have adapted your editorial suggestion in Update:
>
>--------------------------
>Variables in QuadDatas are disallowed in INSERT DATA requests
>(see Note 8 in the grammar). That is, the INSERT DATA statement
>only allows to insert ground triples. Blank nodes in QuadData
>are assumed to be disjoint from the blank nodes in the Graph Store,
>i.e., will be inserted with "fresh"  blank nodes.
>--------------------------
>
>2) We have edited Note 10. in the Grammar
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#sparqlGrammar
>
>and collected all issues about blank node usage in update and query
>requests in one place in section
>
>http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#grammarBNodes
>
>now.
>
>Please note that the further text you proposes, namely
>
>"users should note that distinct fresh blank nodes will be generated for
>each usage in each block."
>
>disagrees with what we had discussed in thread [1], that is, shared blank
>nodes across QuadPatterns within the same INSERT DATA operation are
>allowed and behave similar as in test case
>http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/basic-update/manife
>st#insert-05a. The group is currently discussing adding more test cases
>making the intended behavior more explicit.
>
>We hope this answers your concerns and would appreciate a response to the
>list acknowledging this.
>
>Thanks, Axel, on behalf of the SPARQL WG.
>
>1.
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0163.html
>
>