> > > >Should we be providing a traditional XML form of the Manifest? > > > > > > The Manifest contains meta data about the test and uses meta data > > > vocabularies such as Dublin Core (DC). Do you mean with traditional > > > XML form that we should invent our own XML vocabulary or do you mean > > > XML/RDF representation of DC? > > I'm not sure about the metadata. I'm just thinking people should be > able to implement the test harness without RDF/XML. Perhaps I'm being > over-cautious there. I remember asking the WG for guidance on this once > before, and I think the WG said RDF/XML was okay, but ... I'm having > second thoughts, as I think about possible implementors. > > > Providing the manifest in "plain" XML sounds > > good. Did you mean instead of or in addition to > > the RDF/XML? Instead of seems reasonable? The group > > never did discuss design constraints or pros/cons > > for different formats of the metadata. Early on > > in group discussions, some people thought the > > metadata should be represented as RIF > > annotations, and you thought it should be as close > > to the RDF/OWL1 test ontologies and formats as possible. > > Later, the idea of aligning with OWL2 test suite came > > up - their metadata is not based on RDF/OWL1 format, > > because they want to have it be OWL-DL compatible. > > Yeah, I'm having a hard time knowing the right option here. Too many > possibilities and considerations. > > Maybe both: > > bld-tests.rdf > --- all the metadata and test data, in rdf/xml > bld-tests.xml > --- all the test data, some metadata, in simpler xml > You gave a reason for providing it in XML, to make it simpler for a broader group of test harness implementers. What would be the reason to also provide it in RDF/XML? How about the file representing all the tests having all the test data and all the metadata, and then for each individual test, all the metadata only? Stella > > > -Adrian > > > > > -- Sandro > > > > > -- Sandro > > StellaReceived on Monday, 1 December 2008 15:56:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:59 GMT