W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > January 2019

Re: [dxwg] Editorial revision to sec "Quality Information" (#652)

From: Riccardo Albertoni via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:33:49 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-454005897-1547472828-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
>@riccardoAlbertoni thanks for the explanation. I'm afraid I'm still lost however. I understand that the BPs in the DWBP document cannot specify a testing plan in detail, and I'm fine with it.

OK

> But I'm really struggling how the DBWP as a whole can be the source of any conformance test. I would expect that the derivation would be from specific BPs.

I am not sure that I had your doubt right, probably not. Anyway,  in my view, `a:conformanceTest` is a plan which checks all the BPs, in fact it is composed by  `a:test1, ..., a:testn` see example 7.  Each of the tests will check for a specific BP and will have a proper derivation from a single BP. Are your comments suggesting that we should make this more explicit?  For example, we could state this before example 4 and renaming    the `a:test1 ...` as  `a:testBP1`, `a:testn` as `a:testBPn`.


> Maybe my issue is more visible with example 7 than with example 5. I'm not sure how one could say that a test that in its title is said to be derived from the INSPIRE regulation would have only one prov:wasDerivedFrom statement and that this statement would have DWBP as a whole as an object, which DWBP is probably much more general than INSPIRE.

Well spotted!
The `dct:title` in `a:conformarmanceTest`  currently referring to INSPIRE should indeed refer to DWBP. I am going to fix this.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by riccardoAlbertoni
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/652#issuecomment-454005897 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 14 January 2019 13:33:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:45:06 UTC