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

TEST: let's use spec for test case descriptions

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 03 Sep 2002 11:25:37 -0500
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1031070338.8409.35.camel@dirk>

Going over some of the recent email about
tests, updating the repository and such...

I'm leery about maintaining test description
text separate from the specs. I'd rather
have the tests refer to sections of the
spec... even individual 'test assertions'
in the spec.

So for a test we recently approved,
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/FunctionalProperty/premises002

rather than:

"
 If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty,
 and a resource has prop arcs pointing to two
 different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs denote the
 same resource, and hence each have the same properties.
"

just let's refer to

" This asserts that P can only have one (unique) value y for each
instance x, i.e: there cannot be two distinct instances y1 and y2 such
that the pairs (x,y1) and (x,y2) are both instances of P. Of course,
this is a shorthand notation for the maxCardinality restriction of 1."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-ref-20020729/#FunctionalProperty-def


which will cause us to notice the awkward
language "instances of P", which should
be "in the extension of P" (Mike Dean,
please acknowledge).

I hadn't noticed the 'shorthand' text; I'm glad
Peter proposed a relevant test (in his
message of 03 Sep 2002 12:08:41 -0400).

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 12:25:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT