Re: R2RML: comments on spec and test cases

Hi Toby

On 26/09/2011 12:19, Toby Inkster wrote:
> SPEC
> ====
>
> Section 8 of the spec includes an example R2RML mapping which uses the
> property rr:refObjectMap - however, this property isn't mentioned
> anywhere else. I think rr:objectMap is intended.
>
> The first example R2RML mapping in section 9 uses rr:graph where I
> believe rr:constant is intended.
>
>
> TESTS
> =====
>
> This test case file is invalid Turtle:
>
> 	D011-M2MRelations/r2rmlb.ttl
>
> (Missing two semicolons.)
Thanks for pointing out this.
It's fixed now.
>
> Many of the tests seem to test against the March 2011 draft of R2RML,
> and should be updated. Although my implementation now follows the Sept
> 2011 draft, it still supports the March 2011 draft except where they
> conflict. The major place they conflict is the default term type for
> object maps (literal in March, IRI in September). Test cases really
> need updating.
>
> It would be useful if the tests didn't use schema-qualified table
> names (e.g. "SCOTT.DEPT"). Although my implementation does support
> schema-qualified table names, I've been running the test cases on
> SQLite, which does not support schemas (at least, not in a normal way).
> Given that there is no longer a rr:tableOwner predicate, support for
> schemas doesn't seem to be an "feature" that an R2RML test suite
> should be testing for - i.e. because it's a feature of the underlying
> database, not a feature of R2RML.
>
We are updating the test cases to the current spec.
We'll let you know when they are ready.

Thanks again

Boris

Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 12:59:40 UTC