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

Re: some comments on Test

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:48:15 -0500
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF66950916.F8F607EB-ON8525750D.0002D208-8525750D.00046AF8@us.ibm.com>
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.

> 
> >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?
>

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.

 
> 
> -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?

> 
> That's it for now.
> 
>      -- Sandro
>

Thanks again,
Stella 
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2008 00:48:59 GMT

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