- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:51:44 -0500
- To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
- cc: "Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
> 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>
> > Thanks for the comments.</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> >Using bugzilla? </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> 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>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> >Should we be providing a traditional XML
> form of the Manifest?</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> The Manifest contains meta data about the test
> and uses meta data <br>
> > vocabularies such as Dublin Core (DC). Do you mean with traditional
> <br>
> > XML form that we should invent our own XML vocabulary or do you mean<br>
> > XML/RDF representation of DC?</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>></font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>Providing the manifest in "plain" 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> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> -Adrian</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> Looking over Test, a few comments/questions:</font>
> </tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> -- Using bugzilla? I don't
> think we're set up for that. Just using</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> public-rif-comments seems
> best for now. Did I miss some</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> discussion about this? I
> don't think we'll get enough bug reports</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> to warrant the overhead
> of us all using bugzilla....</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> -- Should we be providing a traditiona
> l
> XML form of the Manifest?</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> I'm kind of thinking so,
> when we talk about it being Easy To Use.</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> Maybe have an Editor's Note
> about that for now?</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> -- Appendix 8 says "is shown
> below", but it's not. Drop that section</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> 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>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> -- Let's add an editor's note saying
> we're working on the</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> test-results-format?</font></t
> t>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>done.</font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> -- The W3C house style [1] is to
> say:</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> Rule
> Interchange Format (RIF)</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> 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 "Set of Documents" section use</font></
> tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>just "RIF." 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>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> That's it for now.</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> </font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>> -- Sandro</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>></font></tt>
> <br>
> <br><tt><font size=1>Thanks again,</font></tt>
> <br><tt><font size=1>Stella </font></tt>
> --=_alternative 000469E08525750D_=--
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2008 02:51:53 UTC