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

AW: some comments on Test

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:11:33 +0100
To: "'Stella Mitchell'" <cleo@us.ibm.com>, "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "'Leora Morgenstern'" <leora@us.ibm.com>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <013c01c953cf$7afaeb10$70f0c130$@paschke@gmx.de>
BTW, I think it would be good if we can officially approve more test cases
in the next telecon, before we publicly announce the RIF test working draft.

 

People will certainly take a look at the test cases when they read the
working draft. The more test cases we have there, the better picture of the
RIF test case they will get.

 

-Adrian

 

Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Stella Mitchell
Gesendet: Montag, 1. Dezember 2008 16:40
An: Sandro Hawke
Cc: Leora Morgenstern; Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Betreff: Re: some comments on Test

 


We updated to say report bugs to the public email list. 

Updated wording in Appendix 8 to remove the reference that it's included
below and to say that it is under development. 

Updated "RIF" references. 

For the metadata format, your comment for this working draft is that we add
an editor's note, is that right?  I made the existing one a little stronger
to: 
      "The test case format is under discussion and is likely to change" 

Please take a look and see if these updates address your comments. 

Thanks, 
TCG 






Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org 

11/25/2008 09:51 PM 


To

Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS 


cc

"Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org 


Subject

Re: some comments on Test

 

		






> Thanks for the comments.
> 
> public-rif-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 11/25/2008 09:27:51 AM:
> 
> > Thanks for the comments.
> > 
> > >Using bugzilla? 
> > 
> > Yes, you are right bugzilla is too much overhead in this early phase.
> 
> A few questions about it - First, what is the
> overhead? W3C already hosts a public version, 
> and anyone can get an account by typing in their 
> email address and choosing a password. You 
> (I assume) would have to create a project for RIF test
> cases, and we (anyone) could configure to send an
> email notification, with details, to the WG whenever 
> a new bug is added? Second, why don't you expect bug
> reports - aren't the test cases basically like untested
> code? I don't mind changing the section to say problems
> should be reported by email, but am curious about
> your answers to these questions.

My concern is the mental overhead of us learning to use bugzilla and
paying attention to it.  And configuring it for RIF bug reports.  

> > >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

> > -Adrian
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Looking over Test, a few comments/questions:
> > 
> >    -- Using bugzilla?  I don't think we're set up for that.  Just using
> >       public-rif-comments seems best for now.  Did I miss some
> >       discussion about this?  I don't think we'll get enough bug reports
> >       to warrant the overhead of us all using bugzilla....
> > 
> >    -- Should we be providing a traditional XML form of the Manifest?
> >       I'm kind of thinking so, when we talk about it being Easy To Use.
> >       Maybe have an Editor's Note about that for now?
> > 
> >    -- Appendix 8 says "is shown below", but it's not.  Drop that section
> >       for now, esp since I gather the schema is out of date?
> 
> pending metadata format clarification.
> 
> > 
> >    -- Let's add an editor's note saying we're working on the
> >       test-results-format?
> 
> done.
> 
> > 
> >    -- The W3C house style [1] is to say:
> >            Rule Interchange Format (RIF)
> >       not: RIF (Rule Interchange Format)
> 
> Now noticing that all the other documents
> in the "Set of Documents" section use
> just "RIF."  Should we do that also for
> consistency, or spell it out in the house
> style?

Good point.  I guess out practice is/should be to use just "RIF" in the
title, but then to spell it out (in house style) where the term first
occurs in the abstract and the introduction. 

   -- Sandro

> > That's it for now.
> > 
> >      -- Sandro
> >
> 
> Thanks again,
> Stella 
> --=_alternative 000469E08525750D_=
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> 
> 
> <br><tt><font size=1>Thanks for the comments.</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>public-rif-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 11/25/2008
09:27:5
> 1
> AM:<br>
> <br>
> &gt; Thanks for the comments.</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &gt;Using bugzilla? &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; Yes, you are right bugzilla is too much overhead
> in this early phase.</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>A few questions about it - First, what is
the</font></tt
> >
> <br><tt><font size=1>overhead? W3C already hosts a public version,
</font></t
> t>
> <br><tt><font size=1>and anyone can get an account by typing in their
</font>
> </tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>email address and choosing a password. You
</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>(I assume) would have to create a project for RIF
> test</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>cases, and we (anyone) could configure to send
an</font>
> </tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>email notification, with details, to the WG whenever
> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>a new bug is added? Second, why don't you expect
bug</fo
> nt></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>reports - aren't the test cases basically like
untested<
> /font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>code? I don't mind changing the section to say
problems<
> /font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>should be reported by email, but am curious
about</font>
> </tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>your answers to these questions.</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &gt;Should we be providing a traditional XML
> form of the Manifest?</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; The Manifest contains meta data about the test
> and uses meta data <br>
> &gt; vocabularies such as Dublin Core (DC). Do you mean with traditional
> <br>
> &gt; XML form that we should invent our own XML vocabulary or do you
mean<br>
> &gt; XML/RDF representation of DC?</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt;</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>Providing the manifest in &quot;plain&quot; XML
sounds</
> font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>good. Did you mean instead of or in addition to
</font><
> /tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>the RDF/XML? Instead of seems reasonable? The
group</fon
> t></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>never did discuss design constraints or pros/cons
> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>for different formats of the metadata. Early on
</font><
> /tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>in group discussions, some people thought
the</font></tt
> >
> <br><tt><font size=1>metadata should be represented as RIF</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>annotations, and you thought it should be as
close</font
> ></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>to the RDF/OWL1 test ontologies and formats as
possible.
> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>Later, the idea of aligning with OWL2 test suite came
> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>up - their metadata is not based on RDF/OWL1
format,</fo
> nt></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>because they want to have it be OWL-DL
compatible.</font
> ></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&nbsp; </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; -Adrian</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; Looking over Test, a few
comments/questions:</font>
> </tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;-- Using bugzilla? &nbsp;I don't
> think we're set up for that. &nbsp;Just using</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; public-rif-comments seems
> best for now. &nbsp;Did I miss some</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; discussion about this?
&nbsp;I
> don't think we'll get enough bug reports</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; to warrant the overhead
> of us all using bugzilla....</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;-- Should we be providing a
traditiona
> l
> XML form of the Manifest?</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I'm kind of thinking so,
> when we talk about it being Easy To Use.</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Maybe have an Editor's Note
> about that for now?</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;-- Appendix 8 says &quot;is shown
> below&quot;, but it's not. &nbsp;Drop that section</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; for now, esp since I gather
> the schema is out of date?</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>pending metadata format clarification.</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;-- Let's add an editor's note
saying
> we're working on the</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
test-results-format?</font></t
> t>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>done.</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;-- The W3C house style [1] is to
> say:</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Rule
> Interchange Format (RIF)</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; not: RIF (Rule Interchange
> Format)</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>Now noticing that all the other documents</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>in the &quot;Set of Documents&quot; section
use</font></
> tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>just &quot;RIF.&quot; &nbsp;Should we do that also
> for</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>consistency, or spell it out in the house</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>style?</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; That's it for now.</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp;</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;-- Sandro</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>&gt;</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>Thanks again,</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>Stella &nbsp;</font></tt>
> --=_alternative 000469E08525750D_=--
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 16:12:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:59 GMT