Re: URI fragments in test cases

On 10/02/2011 16:22, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * David McNeil<>  [2011-02-10 08:00-0600]
>> I notice the test cases use URI fragment like this:
>> <#TriplesMap1>
>> without defining an @base URI. For example:
>> It seems to me that it would be better to completely specify the URIs in the
>> test mappings rather than leaving them open in this way. From working with
>> implementing the test cases I have found that the ambiguity of the URIs gets
>> in the way of what we are really trying to test which is the R2RML mapping
>> functionality.
> Noting that David's point about the the human comprehension of the
> tests, here are a couple related technical points.
> I found the direct mapping test cases slightly simpler when I was just
> comparing two graphs which happened to be relative. This allowed me to
> not pass an arbitrary base parameter to the function which generates
> the mapping. Compare
>   relative test: DM(db) == parse(expected)       # expected's IRIs are relative.
> vs.
>   absolute test: DB(db, base) == parse(expected) # expected's IRIs are absolute.
> Having absolute IRIs for the DM tests will require tests to specify
> the base external to the expected turtle (or grep for @base, which
> is a bit of a precarious hack^h^hconvention).
> While the DM is simple enough to be entirely represented using
> relative IRIs, R2RML simply must have some absolute IRIs. I guess an
> implementation which could only compare absolute graphs could supply a
> base like http://34fdiq23htye.example/some/path/ to both the parser
> and the mapping function.
Thanks Eric.
So, for the R2RML test cases I'll include @base URI.


Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 01:40:02 UTC