- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:55:08 -0000 (GMT)
- To: bvillazon@fi.upm.es
- Cc: "rdB2RDF WG" <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> 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 Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:55:12 UTC