W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: AW: [RIF-Test] RIF Test Cases

From: Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:05:38 +0200
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org, der@hplb.hpl.hp.com, cleo@us.ibm.com
Message-ID: <20080814230538.26390@gmx.net>
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de

 
> I see what you mean now.  On the telecon I thought you were talking about 
> designing a test-cases dialect for a rule language that is more expressive
> than 
> BLD. Really you mean, I think, a set of standard meta-data "properties" to
> hold 
> the test-case manifest.
> 

Yes and no. What we currently have is a format to describe test cases on the WIKI which is mostly intended for human readers. What I would additionally envision is to represent test cases directly in RIF so that they can be interchanged together with a RIF rule program/rule set. Test cases can then be used by automated tools to e.g.:

1. verify the syntax of the interchange RIF program (producer side test)
2. verify the execution environment, i.e. test that the consumer side can correctly translate, interpret and execute the received RIF program
3. validate that the RIF program covers the unit tests (producer tests, e.g. for test-driven engineering of RIF programs, consumer tests to validate that the (application specific) semantics of the received program and the rule engine comply) 

The test cases described on the WIKI are based on templates such as http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Template:PositiveEntailmentTest which use a set of standard properties defined in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Format#Format. Some of these properties like author, discussion etc. are more informative (could be part of the manifest file), others like e.g. test type, dialect, premise, conclusion contain important semantic information which is need to correctly execute a test case.  

So, if we want to represent test cases directly in RIF we need to add this information to a RIF document, either as additional meta data, e.g. to distinguish facts from queries and conclusions or we would need new XML constructs or attributes, e.g. for conclusions, queries, variable bindings, expected result of a test (positive entailment or negative entailment) etc.

But let's start simple and first collect positive entailment tests which demonstrate BLD and DTB.
Some example test cases for BLD (positive entailment test cases) can be found here

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Ordered_Relations
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Unordered_Relations
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Frames
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Equality

- Adrian
-- 
Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten 
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 23:06:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:53 GMT