RE: Action Item: Testable Statement class

-----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.

Regards,
CI.