- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:19:30 -0500
- To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 21:17 +0200, Hausenblas, Michael wrote: [...] > Ok. But we are not in the GRDDL WG, but in the RDFa TF ... Very well. [...] > Yes. It is substantive. From *broken* to *what the TC should be about*. > But again - we can and should discuss this one again; even if it's > just to fulfil some droll 'rules' - BTW, where are they? > > I tried hard to prepare myself for the TC (e.g. [1]), > but - and I did not want to state it this clear until your > recent comments - I have to say: regarding testing (support) > I really feel left alone within W3C. There are some activities > here (QA) and there, but NO common framework, no best practice, > nothing in the process document AFAIK - how the heck should I know :( > > So, thanks again for your comments. And in case you want to *really* > change the system (and a little bird told me that you happen to be in > this position) please take care that the QA WG/IG or who ever is > responsible > writes something down. For me. For all people doing TC. For the World. > Amen. Each group ultimately makes its own rules. What survives the group is the tech reports: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/ http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/ (the SPARQL test cases aren't released as a tech report, as far as I know) The OWL test cases doc has a fairly explicit write-up, including a section on modification. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#testProcess I'm trying to understand the way this TF is working, but it might not be worthwhile to get me in sync at this point. It might be easier for me to just stay tuned until more things become clear. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 20:19:41 UTC