W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: manifests and words for the test cases.

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:54:32 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020412115341.027143c0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
This sounds like good progress Jan.  Don't forget you don't have to do all 
the work yourself, you can ask for volunteers to help if you can identify 
bits of work that can be split off.

Brian


At 11:11 12/04/2002 +0100, Jan Grant wrote:
>last telecon DanC asked, "is there a README for this [test case]"?
>
>I'm running a little behind* but I'm hoping by the end of today to have
>populated the existing test cases on a directory-by-directory basis with
>manifest.rdf files that describe the existing (approved) test cases.
>
>These will be collated into one larger file that should be readily
>machine-processable.
>
>I'll also have some skeleton files for Jos to stick details of his
>entailment tests into.
>
>At a first pass, these are going to be fairly minimalist** but there's
>room in the file for human-readable descriptions, pointers to emails,
>etc. should people feel that a test case requires more description.
>Again, this can be done on a directory-by-directory basis and slurped up
>afterwards.
>
>I'll be sticking some more words together over the weekend to revise the
>existing document; this should be in an internally-reviewable state by
>Monday.
>
>I'm away on Tuesday next week so, assuming things go according to
>schedule, I could do with a volunteer to translate things into en_US and
>check markup, etc.
>
>Cheers,
>jan
>
>* "expect the unexpected" is fast becoming my motto :-(
>** minimalist = test type, status (APPROVED), related issue, input and
>   output files, and an indication if a warning is to be raised.
>
>PS. Current test-case taxonomy:
>
>positive parser test (input: .rdf file(s); output: .nt file; optionally,
>an indication of a warning)
>
>negative parser test (input: bad .rdf file)
>
>positive RDF-entailment test (input: .rdf (or .nt) file(s); output: file
>containing a valid entailment according t the rules of RDF-entailment)
>
>negative RDF-entailment test (as above, but the entailment does not
>hold)
>
>ditto the above two test types but using the rules of RDFS-entailment as
>outlined by MT.
>
>Jos: I think this reflects the full extent of your test cases, or are
>there others? There are no DT-specific tests here.
>
>
>
>--
>jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
>Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
>Random act of violence against bread: whole pint.
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 06:56:46 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:27 EDT