W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: status of http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020827.095049.128872653.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: status of http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/
Date: 27 Aug 2002 08:45:23 -0500

> On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 08:34, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > 
> > From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> > Subject: Re: status of http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/ (Re: TEST: Functional and InverseFunctional tests for approval)
> > Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:00:21 +0200
> > 
> > > Peter asks:
> > > > What is the status of this directory?
> > > 
> > > > Can anyone put tests in it?
> > > 
> > > Practically no.
> > > You need to jump through a few hoops with Dan to get CVS access to the
> > > archive.
> > > I see no reason why you shouldn't though. The whole directory is such a mess
> > > that a few more arbitrary additions couldn't make it much worse.
> > > 
> > > I would be pleased if you did create some tests and added them.
> > > 
> > > A proposed clear up approach is to machine process the manifest files to
> > > generate index files that only show the good stuff eventually.
> > > Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if we need a much more dictatorial approach
> > > in which a dictator with sole control of a new directory copies approved
> > > tests into it, making editorial changes at whim. Currently we only have
> > > about five approved tests.
> > 
> > I propose the following:
> > 
> > 1/ No tests be added to http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/ until the working
> >    group approves a document that specifies how tests are to be created and
> >    maintained and this document is pointed to by the WG main web page or
> >    the WG main test page.
> >
> > 2/ No tests be placed in http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/ unless they are
> >    approved by the WG.
> > 3/ Part of the test document is a categorization of tests.
> > 4/ No tests be approved by the WG unless they have an accompanying
> >    description and belong to one of the test categories.
> 
> That's more of a constraint than I'm interested in working under.
> 
> > > > If not, why is Jeremy Carroll putting tests in it in
> > > > advance of working group approval?
> > > 
> > > When I add a test I add an entry in the Manifest file of that directory
> > > showing that the status is "PROPOSED". When and if it is approved the status
> > > line changes, and a link to the approving minutes should be added.
> > 
> > I would much prefer that tests in this directory only be approved tests.
> 
> Why does it matter how the filesystem is arranged?
> 
> I can arrange for only the approved test cases to be linked from
> the main test repository page; would that suffice?

This would be OK by me, as long as rejected tests were removed upon their
rejection and as long as tests were only approved under the conditions
above.

However, the only change here would be that proposed tests are
provisionally placed in the www.w3.org web site, as opposed to somewhere
else.  Why does this make a difference (if it does)?

> > > Jeremy
> > 
> > peter
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

peter
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 09:52:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT