Re: Suggestions for test cases framework

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> Thanks to Jose and Dimitris to get the test suite started. A few
> suggestions
>
> - sht:schema is probably not the best name - what about sht:shapesGraph
> (and sht:dataGraph)?
>

Maybe...I really prefer short and meaningful names and "data" and "schema"
seemed so. Anyway, that's quite easy to change...

- sht:schema-format and shr:data-format should be optional - can be derived
> from file suffix
>

Yes, they are in fact optional  (the question mark after their name
indicates that they are).

- If SHACL is expressed in itself then many sht:WellFormedSchema test cases
> can be handled with sht:Validate
>

I think it will be useful to have tests that check that something is a well
formed schema or not. Even if the input is well formed RDF, that doesn't
mean that it will be well be a well formed Shape.

The example that I gave yesterday was a shape were the value of
"sh:allowedValues" were not a rdf:list.

- ms:result cannot only be true or false. Some tests produce multiple
> constraint violations, the violations may be warnings only, and we need to
> be able to verify the error details. While true may be sufficient for some
> tests and implementations, we will need the ability to point at a graph
> with results, or (even better) allow the expected results to be stated
> inline, e.g.
>
> mf:result [
>     a sh:Error ;
>     sh:subject ex:JohnDoe ;
> ] ... (multiple values allowed)
>
> In those tests, sh:message should usually be optional.
>

Yes, that's something that was pointed out yesterday by Arnaud and that I
agree. In fact, although in the example the result is true/false, if you go
to the Shape definition, you can see that it is:

"mf:result ."

which means that the range of mf:result is anything (by now).

Arthur also said that we may define a standard results format and I also
agree with that. Probably, the best way is to incorporate the constraint
violation vocabulary that you have in your proposal spec. I will see if I
can do that in an easy way.

Best regards, Jose Labra




> Thanks
> Holger
>
>
>


-- 
-- Jose Labra