W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: RDB2RDF - Test cases naming convention

From: Robert Scanlon <rscanlon@revelytix.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 09:08:04 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=RTm1wxum2+sSitLWU5UKAUgGokA@mail.gmail.com>
To: bvillazon@fi.upm.es
Cc: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>, rdb2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Boris,

I wasn't in the telecon, but gathered some of the discussion from David.
 Not sure where you all ended up, but here's what I had been suggesting
earlier as a point of reference, with the example you requested below.

   1. use an explicit short, sortable unique identifier for databases
   (schemas or 'data sets')
      - e.g., D000, D001, D002, etc
   2. use a short, consistent, scalable identifier for mappings
      - e.g., G000, G001 etc for direct graphs; R000, R001, etc for r2rml
      maps
   3. use a combination of these for test case identification (mostly for
   referencing in docs, conversations, and bugs)
      - e.g., TC000-G000, TC000-R000, TC000-R001, etc if we want a different
      prefix (TC) for test cases, or
      - e.g., D000-G000, D000-R000, D000-R001, etc if we simply want to
      concatenate the database and map IDs


So an example organizational structure might be (note IDs are shown
uppercased, but filenames should be lowercased):

*D000 *- Simple 1 table, 1 column database; empty.
    TC000-G000 - Direct graph   - Map *G000 *- Files: map_g000.ttl, ...
    TC000-R000 - <description> - Map *R000 *- Files: map_r000.ttl, ...
    TC000-R001 - <description> - Map *R001 *- Files: map_r001.ttl, ...
     ...
*D001 *- Simple 1 table, 1 column database; 1 record.
    TC001-G000 - Direct graph   - Map *G000 *- Files: map_g000.ttl, ...
    TC001-R000 - <description> - Map *R000 *- Files: map_r000.ttl, ...
    TC001-R001 - <description> - Map *R001 *-  Files: map_r001.ttl, ...
    ...
*D002 *- Simple 1 table, 2 columns database; 1 record.
    TC002-G000 - Direct graph   - Map *G000 *- Files: map_g000.ttl, ...
    TC002-R000 - <description> - Map *R000* - Files: map_r000.ttl, ...
    TC002-R001 - <description> - Map *R001 *- Files: map_r001.ttl, ...
    TC002-R002 - <description> - Map *R002* - Files: map_r002.ttl, ...
    TC002-R003 - <description> - Map *R003 *- Files: map_r003.ttl, ...
  ...

There's a lot of variations of the above that could be employed, but the
general theme is consistency, scalability, and sort-order that can be
aligned with the presentation in the docs.  Note each identifier should be
accompanied by a short name (like the current database identifiers) and
short readable description, so we can list tests at each level by ID, Name,
and Description.

Bob



On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Boris Villazón Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es
> wrote:

> Hi Eric, Robert, David, all
>
> Last telcon we were discussing about the test cases naming convention.
> As far as I remember we agreed-on the names should be descriptive and start
> with a letter.
>
> However Robert/David suggest also the possibility to order the test cases
> alphanumeric. is this correct?
> would you please point out an example?
>
> Sorry if I'm asking this again
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Boris
>
>
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 14:08:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 April 2011 14:08:40 GMT