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

Re: Action Item: Testable Statement class

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:37:59 +0200
Message-ID: <44C9E907.3070204@w3.org>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Cc: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>

Hi,

IMO, every assertion *must* have an earl:Requirement (maybe even exactly one requirement per assertion?). For example WCAG 1.0 CP 1.1 or whatever.

It seems that earl:TestCase must be optional because it may not even be disclosed in certain situations. There may also be multiple test cases that are run in order to come to a result for an assertion. The test cases can point to each other using the dc:hasPart and dc:isPartOf which should be sufficient for now without creating a test description language.

The questions now are:
* does everyone agree that we need these two separate classes?
* should these classes be subclasses of earl:Testable or not?
* are the definitions of these two classes sound and clear?
* what kind of cardinality restrictions do we want for them?


Regards,
  Shadi


Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> -----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.
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | 
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | 
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ | 
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | 
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | 
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France | 
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 | 
Received on Friday, 28 July 2006 10:38:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:27 GMT