- From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:33:57 +0100
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- CC: chairs@w3.org, Tim Boland <frederick.boland@NIST.GOV>, Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Thanks for this Michael, I've stripped down the distribution list a little before replying, but added Antonis Kukurikos who was the one who handled this (see how I quickly passed the buck there?) and Tim Boland who gave us a lot of advice wrt QA. I agree that a single, interoperable vocabulary would be jolly useful for this. AIUI, Antonis looked at the SPARQL test cases and adapted that. He could just as easily have chosen a different one and perhaps ended up with something slightly different so some sort of commonality and guidance would clearly be useful. That said, I would be grateful if such guidance were to be implemented in the future, rather than retrospectively! Cheers Phil. Michael Hausenblas wrote: > Phil, > > Thanks for this announcement, gotta dig deeper into it ;) > > One tiny question for the start (maybe not so relevant for POWDER itself, > but for QA-W3C purposes): > > Looking at your Test Cases I gather you use [1] as the base voc for testing > whereas we over at RDFa use [2]. Wondering if the QA group of W3C would > finally be kind enough to provide binding guidelines for *all* WG in order > to create an interoperable set of TC throughout all specs. > > As an aside: I'll likely be responsible for the Media Fragments WG TC [3] > and want to prepare properly (based on my experiences with the RDFa TC and > what else I see in the W3C realm) > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Michael > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/testSchema# > [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description# > [3] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Feb/0031.html > -- Phil Archer http://philarcher.org/www@20/ i-sieve technologies | W3C Mobile Web Initiative Making Sense of the Buzz | www.w3.org/Mobile
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 10:34:48 UTC