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

TEST draft message

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:11:12 -0000
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDEEDLCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

This message is a draft, for input from anyone else interested in testing,
before a WOWG tagged message for tomorrows' conference.

Jos can you fill in something about entailment tests; make any edits you
feel are necessary to the rest, and repost it with a WOWG tag in the subject
line.

=====

We propose that the test focus area should produce as their first
deliverable to the working group a document that describes one or more test
formats that will be useful for:
- dicussing the properties of OWL
- helping specify the properties of OWL
- testing implementations of OWL

Background:
===========

The RDF Core WG has been using test cases for most of its existence.

The standard RDF test is to assert that a particular RDF/XML file represents
the same graph as an n-triple file.
Typically both files are small.
e.g.
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/
test002.rdf
corresponds to
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/
test002.nt


Such simple examples have great merit of:
- being clear
- being binary (yes or no)

Thus they are useful for clarifying e-mail discussion.
An example, more or less at random, see Option 2 in this e-mail:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0197.html

[[[

<rdf:Description>
  <foo:bar xml:lang="en">foobar</foo:bar>
</rdf:Description>

becomes (please forgive the shorthand):

  _:a <foo:bar>    _:b .
  _:b <xml:lang>   "en" .
  _:b <rdf:value> "foobar" .

]]]

A shorthand syntax is used, we can either agree or disagree with this.
(This example is not endorsed by the RDF Core WG).

This year, a new test format has been being used. This is an entailment
test.

The test consists of a set of files that are the antecedents of an
entailments, and a set of files that are the hypothetical consequences.

The test is again binary: does the entailment hold or not.

JOS - PLEASE ADD A FORMAL EXAMPLE.

An example of how such a test is useful in WG discussion is from the fairly
heated datatyping discussion. The chair summarized many strongly felt issues
as simple entailments. This reduced the emotional heat.

For example, in a summary message:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0040.html

of the nine or ten disputed issues three are expressed as entailments:
Issue B4, Issue B9 and Issue B10.

So, test cases are not a panacea (six or seven of those issues were not
expressed as test cases), but they are helpful.

Another part of RDF Core's (ongoing) work is the specification of a manifest
file, that lists all the tests, their type and their status.

JOS - could you add a pointer to the e-mail log for the manifest file
please?


=================


How's that look?

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 10:11:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT