Thanks for the clarifications Can the working group please fix this ASAP?
Or do I have to send yet another formal comment moaning about the dodgy state of the 1.1 test suite Rob On 8/31/12 10:43 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 31/08/12 16:53, Rob Vesse wrote: >> Well actually the use case that prompted this debate and my >>interpretation >> is actually one of the DAWG 1.1 tests so it may turn out that the test >>is >> actually wrongly defined currently. >> >> The test in question is delete/delete-using-02.ru which is as follows: > >ah ... > >> >> PREFIX : <http://example.org/> >> PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> >> >> DELETE >> { >> ?s ?p ?o . >> } >> USING <http://example.org/g3> >> WHERE >> { >> GRAPH <http://example.org/g2> >> { >> :a foaf:knows ?s . >> ?s ?p ?o >> } >> } >> >> >> So if your interpretation is correct (and I will assume it is) then this >> update should have no effect because the WHERE clause should yield no >> results, yet the manifest points to expected results which suggest we >> should be deleting data. The Update spec says USING and USING NAMED >> behave exactly the same as FROM and FROM NAMED so this test seems at odd >> with that statement. >> >> Is this test just plain incorrect? > >yes. > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JulSep/0135.html > >and I'm not the only one. > >> >> If this test is incorrect (which I'm beginning to suspect it is) we can >>do >> away with the debate and take your interpretation of the spec to be >> correct which makes life a whole lot easier for us because currently we >> implement your interpretation of the spec and not having to change our >> implementation is easier. (Of course I then have to go fix dotNetRDF >> because I originally implemented your interpretation and later changed >>it >> because of a debate with another developer over this same test) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Rob >
