Re: TEST: What is a test (was Re: TEST: Functional and InverseFunctional tests for approval)

I feel a strong sense of agreement with Peter this morning!
(honest)

Peter:
>I feel strongly that a test is not just one or two files, but instead must
>have an attached description and rationale.  In my view, all this
>information should be bundled together in single easily human-readable
document,
>which is what would be approved by the working group.

I agree with this but less strongly.
At some point we need to be able to present the test material in a more
coherent fashion than the current overly messy web site.

My understanding of the current modus operandi is that we are making do with
a few scrappy files and a Manifest file that could be machine processed to
create what Peter expects. (One thing missing from the Manifest is
"rationale", I am not clear what would constitute a rationle for a test, why
do we choose one test rather than another). I have typically triplicated the
description putting it in the Manifest and the premises and conclusions
document for each test. This is not perfect and is error prone, but I am not
volunteering to build the machine processor this week.

RDF Core's test cases document is largely machine processed from the
Manifest files; given the amount of work that that has been I don't think I
realistically aspire to more than that; whilst Peter's wishes appear
greater.

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#tc_cert

As is, I don't think we should hold up approving test cases merely on
packaging grounds. However the packaging is currently inadequate.

Jeremy