- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:12:53 +0000
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Unless you're trying to make a point that missed me, the file extension should be .srj. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-json-res/#mediaType (the SPARQL 1.0 uses this BTW) Andy On 01/02/11 13:21, Axel Polleres wrote: > Hi all, > > 4 "JSON result format" test cases can be found under > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/json-res/ > > In this context, I also looked into > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html > to see what I need to adapt for tests of the SPARQL results format... > We have - actually - not really defined testing of the results format > per se, but basically say that SELECT and ASK queries pass, if the result > is equivalent after encoding results into RDF: > > "A SPARQL implementation passes a query evaluation test if the graph produced by evaluating the query against the RDF dataset (and encoding in the DAWG result set vocabulary, if necessary) is equivalent [RDF-CONCEPTS] to the graph named in the result (after encoding in the DAWG result set vocabulary, if necessary)." > > We haven't specified in detail how the conversion to DAWG result set vocabulary works in sparql/docs/tests/result-set.n3 > Anyways, I think that's a minor issue, or does anyone think we need to define the mapping for each result format? (I think/hope it is quite obvious) > > So far, I just added some lines allowing the JSON results format, under the name/short-name suggested by Andy [1] in the test case README.html > Opinions welcome! > > best, > Axel > > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0140.html
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 15:13:38 UTC