W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2004

Re: RDF Core test driven development and QA Test Doc

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:23:07 +0000
Message-ID: <3FFC4E8B.6070908@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: david_marston@us.ibm.com
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

> 
> How did you demonstrate the existence of more than one conformant (and
> presumably interoperable) implementations?


Sandro's explanaton was clear I think.

I'll add one point.

The tests give one or two (sometimes three) documents and specify that 
these documents have some property.

If we have many different products, including ones that the WG might not 
have thought of, and for each of these the implementor signs off as "yes my 
implementation treats this set of files (with one, two or three members) as 
having this property, in an appropriate way, and we have sufficiently 
pertinent tests (maybe in terms of coverage, maybe only in terms of 
coverage of the difficult bits) then that does show interoperability.

To go with Sandro's <em> example

Data:
<html>
   <body><p>I <em>like</em> this.</p>
   </body>
</html>

Test:
"like" is emphasised


We might have a voice2html converter which is tested by a human reading out 
the text emphasising "like" and low-and-behold the test data is produced.

We might have a voice browser that reads "like" with emphasis,
and
we might have a standard browser that shows "like" in italics

By expressing the test abstractly enough we can demonstrate 
interoperability between these different products.

(Obviously this example is not credible).

I am not sure how much variety of product we actually had running the OWL 
and RDF core tests, but I am pretty sure that there were some significant 
differences in the way they executed the tests - I think that's been a 
strength rather than a weakness.

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 13:35:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT