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

Re: Action Item: Testable Statement class

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:24:24 +0200
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: "ERT group" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tc9b2ywwwxe0ny@widsith.lan>

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:37:55 +0200, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Charles,
> <cite url="http://www.w3.org/2006/02/28-er-minutes">
> * JibberJim> chaals, are you still happy to have the action item to  
> write up the thing you can pass or fail and subClass ?
> * chaals> yeah.
> </cite>
> We urgently need this class in order to finalize the schema. If I recall  
> correctly, you had proposed to write up and RDF Schema for a generic  
> class to describe "testable statement" (aka "a thing you can pass or  
> fail"), which then has "test requirement" and "test case" as  
> sub-classes. By when could you complete this?

     <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Test Requirement</rdfs:label>
     <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">A requirement against which subjects are  

     <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Test Case</rdfs:label>
     <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">A Test Case, that when tested indicates  
whether the subject passed or failed</rdfs:comment>

     <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Testable Thing</rdfs:label>
     <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">A requirement against which subjects are  
tested, or a test case</rdfs:comment>

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.



   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com          Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 18:24:36 UTC

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