W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > August 2006

RE: Action Item: Testable Statement class

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:05:45 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190E7DC5@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: "ERT group" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

>So an assertion contains exactly one testable, either it is a requirement or a test case. Is this the model you are thinking of?

The problem with this is, how do you know when an assertion about a requirement and an assertion about a test case are assertions about the same?

It would be really helpful if the assertions have something in common to allow comparisons. Because of the fact that we can't expect everybody publishing their test cases, maybe it should be the requirements.

So it could be:

- No Testable class
- At least one required Requirement per Assertion (an Assertion could be related to several requirements e.g. WCAG, 508 and mobileOK)
- An optional (just one) Test Case per Assertion


>Johannes Koch wrote:
>> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> [TestRequirement and TestCase subclasses of Testable]
>>> I still think this is a bad idea, since I don't see the value in 
>>> having  the two kinds of subClass. If we adopt this, the range of 
>>> earl:requirement  needs to be made earl:Testable too. (Since we are 
>>> shifting the range to a  superclass, I think we can get away with that.
>> If the object for the earl:testable is either an earl:TestRequirement or 
>> an earl:TestCase we can create both assertions about subjects 
>> passing/failing/... a certain test case or meeting/not meeting certain 
>> requirements.
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 19:05:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:54 UTC