- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:05:55 -0500
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Cc: bvillazon@fi.upm.es, rdB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 18:55 +0000, 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. Did you guys come up with a machine-readable solution? I need something stable enough to adapt our test suites. Alexandre. > > > 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 19:05:48 UTC