W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Test case planning for CR period

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:05:00 +0100
Message-ID: <3F43800C.7080304@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org

 From the SOTD of owl tests:
[[
The test site is likely to include new, clarifying tests, even during this 
CR period. Additionally, the design of OWL depends in part on the design of 
RDF, and at this time the relevant RDF specifications are only Working 
Drafts. It is therefore possible that unanticipated changes in RDF may 
require changes to OWL.

Each test may be edited or have a change of status according to the process 
specified below. Further tests are being added and contributions are 
invited. The approved tests in this document have typically been 
successfully executed; the proposed tests are also believed to be correct. 
An editor's draft of this document is available with the latest tests and 
up-to-date test status information.
]]

I had always threatened to do a significant number of additional tests, in 
  somewhat more systematic fashion.

Time has basically run out, and I have other (non-OWL) things that are 
higher priority than attempting total coverage of S&AS. (Particularly I 
want to draft a note on RDF Canonicalization)

Instead, I wonder whether some member of the group might consider where 
additional tests over what we've got will be most cost-effective - and what 
sort of tests; and then if we can divide up actions to produce any more 
tests that are needed.

Further if we become aware that implementations conflict, that will guide 
test development.

I am happy to take on creating another 10 to 20 tests in the next two or 
three weeks depending on their size.

I also think any additional tests that we want to add should be added quickly.

The one outstanding request on the test suite that is still on my todo list 
is a request from Ian, that OWL Lite and OWL DL versions of some of the OWL 
Full tests might be created. I would be surprised if that is actually the 
highest priority item.


Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2003 20:30:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT