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

RE: Action Item: Testable Statement class

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:13:58 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190E7DC3@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: "ERT group" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

-----Mensaje original-----
De: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org en nombre de Charles McCathieNevile
Enviado el: Mar 25/07/2006 08:24 p.m.
Para: Shadi Abou-Zahra
CC: ERT group
Asunto: Re: Action Item: Testable Statement class

>> 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?

>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.

I agree it's a bad idea, but as far as I remember it was introduced to allow test procedures where there are no specific test cases, which IMO is a bad practice and we shouldn't model the language according to bad practices.

Anyway, as I said at the last F2F I can live with that, but I'd prefer the model where you have Requirements and Test Cases for them, and the only testable thing is the Test Case.

Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 13:14:13 UTC

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