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

> What we currently have is a format to describe test cases on the 
> WIKI which is mostly intended for human readers.

I think it's more accurate to say that the format on the wiki (really,
the files that the wiki display will be translated into) are intended
to be machine readable and are intended to be executed (to aid in
conformance evaluation). But in order to run them in an automated way,
the testers will need to design and implement their own test harnesses.
Also, to express additional test types we don't currently have, we will
need to define more metadata properties and values (though you say 
metadata
may not be enough to express all additional test types we might want)
This clarification doesn't contradict the rest of what you say though.

Stella




"Adrian Paschke" <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de> 
08/14/2008 07:05 PM

To
Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de
cc
public-rif-wg@w3.org, der@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Stella 
Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
Subject
Re: AW: [RIF-Test] RIF Test Cases






 
> 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