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. -- Johannes Koch - Competence Center BIKA Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.LIFE) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628Received on Friday, 28 July 2006 10:47:54 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:27 GMT