W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2010

Re: [R2RML Test cases] Reorganizing the test cases

From: Boris Villazón Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 16:06:28 +0100
Message-ID: <4CFBAA74.2020305@fi.upm.es>
To: rdB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi all

The new organization of the test cases (work in progress) is available at:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/R2RML_Test_Cases_v1

Best

Boris

On 30/11/2010 19:55, Harry Halpin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After a quick look at the minutes, I think you suggested sth like
>>
>> - the expected default mapping result as separate entry
>> - reorganization of the test cases, sth like
>>       direct graph mapping
>>       features of the r2rml
>> - put the db-direct pairs in the first half of the document?
>> - In TC3, due to absence of primary key, the subject will be a bNode?
>> -  it might be better to have one kind of test cases for direct, and
>> another kind for r2rml?
>>
> I think Eric proposed that we have the test-cases organized by database,
> and then after each database a single direct graph test-cases and then
> multiple R2RML test-cases.
>
> -db1
> -direct graph1
> -r2rml 1a
> -r2rml 1b
>
> -db2
> -direct graph2
> -r2rml 2a
> -r2rml 2b
> -r2rml 2c
>
> I thought it might be easier to do it linearly (i.e. direct graph then
> R2RML), but I'm OK with Eric's sugggestion. I suspect Richard is as well.
>
>> Since I was out of the call, would you pls clarify the aforementioned
>> points?
>>
>> Thank you in advance and regards
>>
>>
>> Boris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 15:07:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:22 UTC