- From: Boris Villazon-Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:53:10 +0100
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Public-Rdb2rdf-Wg RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Eric On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:23 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > * Boris Villazon-Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es> [2012-03-13 18:24+0100] >> Hi Eric >> >> - Here is an example of the earl-compliant test report [1] > > tiny nit: comment text in 2nd example is inconsistent with the assertion: > > ... earl:outcome earl:fail # passed (vs. earl:fail) > could just get rid of the comment. Yes, it was wrong … So, did we reach a consensus on the EARL format for the Test Report? > >> - As you suggested, in order to generate the html test report, we need to map each test case to an r2rml feature, something like this [2], we should do the same for the DM. > > <rdb2rdf-test:R2RMLTC0000> > rdb2rdf-test:relatedFeature r2rml:tableName . > these make sense, but note that it's likely that any test is likely to > cover several features, e.g. r2rml:template and rdb2rdf:nonAsciiName Yes, you are right … I'm going to define the features for the whole set of R2RML TCs, and we should do the same for the DM TCs > >> - regarding your previous email, I should add the base IRI for the TCs in the direct graphs, so we can parse those as nt., is it ok? > > I'd rather just rename them all to .ttl . Does that seem acceptable? It is acceptable for me, If there is no objection, I'm going to rename them all to .ttl Boris
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 23:53:35 UTC