W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Latest draft of Test FAQ, and preparation for Wednesday's telecon

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:58:19 +0100
To: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Cc: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1105523900.3445.3.camel@cumulustier>
Hi Patrick,

> Here are some questions you might want to ask yourself as you review
> the document. Firstly, about the document as a whole:
>       * Is this the right level of detail? The right style/tone?

It sound right to me.

>       * Have we covered all the important points, or do we need to add
>         more questions?

I'm happy with the current ones.

Here are some comments on specific questions:
Q1: be less negative about test-driven development

"Unless you explicitly want to use the test development process as a way
of exploring issues and problems in the specification - a valid and
interesting approach that has been adopted by a number of Working Groups
[@@ example @@]- it's best to wait until the spec is reasonably stable
before starting test development. Otherwise, lots of tests will have to
be rewritten as the spec is modified."

proposed rewrite

"Typically, groups develop their test suites when the specifications
they're developing have reached a certain level of stability. Another
interesting approach - used for instance in the OWL Working Group - is
to develop tests specifically to explore issues and problems in the
specification, often referred as Test Driven Development. Note that this
implies a lot more work on keeping the specification and the tests

Q2: propose strategies rather than luck

"If you're very lucky, you might also be able to persuade other
interested parties to contribute" -> It may also be interesting to look
early at third parties that would be interested in contribute to this
work, typically organizations that want to help the good deployment of
the technology, without having the resources or competences to
participate directly in the group.

Q2: additional ref
For an example of such guidelines, see the CSS Test Authoring Guidelines
(and others linked from the <a
href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/TestCaseMetadata">wiki topic on tests
cases metadata</a>

Q2: addition ref
Define a process to manage contributions (see a possible <a
href="http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/QAH-qapd-text.html#DevelopFramework">template for such a process</a>

Q2: example of TC management
I'll try to get a ref to the one used in the VoiceBrowser WG

Q3: fuzzy term
"Tell people what you need (what areas of the spec should be covered)" 
-> Ask test developers to work in priority on areas of the specs you
think should be covered.

Q5: example of coverage report
VoiceXML 2.0 Implementation report shows how to relate test to the specs
http://www.w3.org/Voice/2004/vxml-ir/#results (1st 2 colums of the

Q6: examples of RDF formats
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/testSchema.n3 RDF Schema for
the RDF specs
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology.rdf OWL Ontology for the OWL
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-EARL10-20021206/#rdf-vocab EARL RDF

Q7: links
link to QA Handbook
and Test contribution FAQ http://www.w3.org/2004/06/29-testcases.html

Remove "conformance" from  "Conformance tests are useful - a conformance
test suite"

Q9: would be good to have a link to a documentation of a W3C Test suite
that we think is good; ideally, Patrick would pick the one that matches
his expecations

Q13: Bugzilla -> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/ 

Q14: "providing a means" -> providing a mean (I think)

* logo/icon discussions should be coordinated with the Communication
* missing closing parathentesis


Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 10:01:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:34 UTC