W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2007

RE: Error in (approved) test 0009

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 21:17:05 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D2985201255C87@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "W3C RDFa task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, <www-qa@w3.org>


Dan,

As always a pleasure to discuss with you :)

> I would need to sync up with Ralph Swick and/or Steven 
> Pemberton before I ask you to re-do some work, but...

Steven is on holiday AFAIK, Ralph will be on the call on Thursday,
hopefully 
- how about you join us at the RDFa Telecon and tell us how best to
proceed, there?

> I don't know how to approve "intention and semantics"; I only 
> know how to approve sequences of bytes.

Now that is a petty - I thought we're on the Semantic Web, at last ;)

> In the GRDDL WG, sometimes the test suite editors were given 
> discretion to change some bytes after a test case was approved...

Ok. But we are not in the GRDDL WG, but in the RDFa TF ...

> I was a little uncomfortable with that, but as long as it was 
> stuff that was really orthogonal to GRDDL (things like 
> license text in XML comments, as I recall), I let it go.

Again. 'My' chair is Ben; whatever he tells me will be fine.

> But in the case of 0009, the change is clearly substantive 
> and not editorial. The TF records show a decision to approve 
> a SPARQL query that said ... WHERE { X P Y }; it's quite a 
> stretch to say that decision applies to a SPARQL query ... 
> WHERE { Y P X }.

Yes. It is substantive. From *broken* to *what the TC should be about*.
But again - we can and should discuss this one again; even if it's
just to fulfil some droll 'rules' - BTW, where are they? 

I tried hard to prepare myself for the TC (e.g. [1]),
but - and I did not want to state it this clear until your
recent comments - I have to say: regarding testing (support)
I really feel left alone within W3C. There are some activities
here (QA) and there, but NO common framework, no best practice,
nothing in the process document AFAIK - how the heck should I know :(

So, thanks again for your comments. And in case you want to *really*
change the system (and a little bird told me that you happen to be in
this position) please take care that the QA WG/IG or who ever is
responsible
writes something down. For me. For all people doing TC. For the World.
Amen.

Cheers,
	Michael

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jan/0049.
html

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
---------------------------------------------------------- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 8:13 PM
> To: Hausenblas, Michael
> Cc: Ivan Herman; W3C RDFa task force
> Subject: RE: Error in (approved) test 0009
> 
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 19:44 +0200, Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> > Dan,
> > 
> > Sooo many question for a simple-minded person, as I am :)
> > 
> > Ok. One step at a time.
> > 
> > > If you changed the content of the test, the status should 
> revert to 
> > > unapproved, right? i.e. a new decision should be made to 
> approve the 
> > > new contents.
> > 
> > I'm not a W3C-Test-Professional, but down-to-earth: When we simply
> > *fix* a broken TC -- which intention and semantics has been 
> approved 
> > -- we do not actually *change* but (ehm what was the word 
> again? ah!) 
> > *fix* it ;)
> >
> > So, if you prefer it, I'd happily propose to review this one again, 
> > from a efficiency POV I'd keep it approved.
> 
> I would need to sync up with Ralph Swick and/or Steven 
> Pemberton before I ask you to re-do some work, but...
> 
> I don't know how to approve "intention and semantics"; I only 
> know how to approve sequences of bytes.
> 
> In the GRDDL WG, sometimes the test suite editors were given 
> discretion to change some bytes after a test case was approved...
> I was a little uncomfortable with that, but as long as it was 
> stuff that was really orthogonal to GRDDL (things like 
> license text in XML comments, as I recall), I let it go.
> But in the case of 0009, the change is clearly substantive 
> and not editorial. The TF records show a decision to approve 
> a SPARQL query that said ... WHERE { X P Y }; it's quite a 
> stretch to say that decision applies to a SPARQL query ... 
> WHERE { Y P X }.
> Perhaps you can get away with that once or twice, but if it 
> happens dozens of times, the evidence that the test suite was 
> reviewed and approved by the TF gets much less compelling.
> 
> > > Hmm... I'm assuming this test suite is organized roughly like the 
> > > RDF Core, OWL, SPARQL, and GRDDL test suites, where approval of a 
> > > test is always traceable to a recorded decision. Is that the way 
> > > this test suite is organized?
> > 
> > Roughly, yes. We're still in a kind of learning phase - so any 
> > improvement suggestions welcome :)
> > 
> > However, I'm very happy you asked this; till now I assumed either 
> > everybody would understand the system -- or nobody would 
> really care 
> > ;)
> > 
> > So, here is the idea:
> > 
> > Every section in [1] has a title 'Review and Approval YYYY-MM-DD'
> > with YYYY-MM-DD representing the date the review took place 
> (in case 
> > of a telecon, or when it was closed in case of a mailing 
> list review).
> 
> Ah... I had missed that... so test cases are grouped by date. Hmm...
> what if a test case is discussed multiple times? Does it show 
> up in multiple places? I suppose I can see how this works.
> 
> Hmm... do test cases get URI names? What's the full URI of test 0009?
> 
> Ah... per the manifest, it seems to be:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/rdfa
> -xhtml1-test-manifest.rdf#Test0009
> 
> 
> I don't see links in the manifest to the approval decision records.
> 
> You have explained quite a bit about how this works, but I'm 
> still not quite sure I understand. It's possible that you 
> just have to be at the teleconferences to understand the 
> process. That's fine, for now, as long as it's eventually 
> written up in a way that's clear enough for consumers of the tests.
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ 
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 19:17:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:09 GMT