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

Re: RDB2RDF - Test cases naming convention

From: Boris Villazón Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:06:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4D99FAAC.2020203@fi.upm.es>
To: Robert Scanlon <rscanlon@revelytix.com>
CC: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>, rdb2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Robert!

> Hi Boris,
>
> I wasn't in the telecon, but gathered some of the discussion from David.
Yes, sorry ... ;)
> 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.
Ok, I see ... so each identifier should be accompanied by a short 
description, i.e, it is compliant with Eric's suggestion "names should 
be descriptive", for example something like database name D000-1table0rows

Eric, is this ok for you?

Boris
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 17:07:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:23 UTC