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

RE: Test-Results and Systems Ontologies (was Re: AGENDA/LOGISTICS...)

From: Charles White <Charles.White@networkinference.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:22:38 +0100
Message-ID: <3BE4D3F0FB726240966DEF40418472B51C8858@ni-lon-server1.ad.networkinference.com>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, "Sandro Hawke <sandro" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "Sean Bechhofer" <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Hey All,

The first question that comes to my mind is - do we want to report all results of tests or wimply those that passed? I believe that the exit criteria is that we report that all the tests have been passed by someone (or two someones), not which ones are passed, which ones timed out, which ones failed, etc.

I am of the mind that we simply report who passed the tests, and possibly put that into severa; levels, such as, passedSyntaxCheck, passedTest, etc. Likewise for the length of time it took the run, etc. I amnot sure that is necessarily useful to get to exit.

chas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com]
> Sent: 27 August 2003 15:22
> To: Sandro Hawke <sandro
> Cc: Charles White; Sean Bechhofer; www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Test-Results and Systems Ontologies (was Re:
> AGENDA/LOGISTICS...)
> 
> 
> 
> Sandro writes:
> > Sean writes:
> > > On the telecon, Dan mentioned the possibility of marking 
> up/publishing
> > > results using RDF. This sounds like a sensible idea and 
> it would be
> easy
> > > for me to produce this. Would it be possible to extend the test
> ontology
> > > [2] to include descriptions of test results?
> > >
> > > [1] http://wonderweb.man.ac.uk/owl/first-order.shtml
> > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology
> >
> > I've been working on this, playing around with some 
> possibilities.  I
> > don't have the ontology or presentation code done, so I've 
> just jotted
> > down some notes, below.   I'm thinking of this as a more general
> > test-results ontology, not really part of the OWL testOntology.
> >
> >
> > class TestRun
> > subclasses PassingRun, FailingRun, IncompleteRun
> >
> >       I'm thinking "incomplete" covers the "Unknown" result,
> >       as well as various sorts of resource-limits, or other
> >       reported errors.   None of these are as bad as an incorrect
> >       result being reported as if it were correct, which would
> >       be a FailingRun
> >
> > has properties:
> >
> >    test -- the specific test being run here
> >    begins -- point in time the run of this test began 
> (xsd:dateTime [1])
> >    ends -- point in time the run of this test ended
> >    system -- the complete system being tested (see below)
> >    output -- a foaf:Document [2] (aka web page) showing 
> more detailed
> output
> 
> That's an interesting proposal and I've tried to work
> it out partially. For an example run (on my slow laptop
> and fetching the files from a cache) see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Aug/att-00
> 27/owl-tr.n3
> 
> The important point however is to fix the namespace
> and I took <http://www.w3.org/2003/08testresult#>
> but it's really up to you/W3C to take one ;-)
> The "system" and "output" are still to be improved
> and I wonder where a proof argument could fit in ?!
> (whatever that may be ;-))
> 
> 
> > For "system", I'm thinking it's important to distinguish between
> > different releases, since of course the test results could be
> > different, and to track what OS/Hardware it's running on -- or at
> > least keep open the option of doing so.   I imagine this being in a
> > different, "systems" ontology, which would be what the 
> implementation
> > report would come from.   (This overlaps with what Charles 
> is working
> > on; I'm not sure how much he's done, or how best to share the work
> > here.)
> >
> > My thinking on systems is:
> >
> > a System consists of one or more components.  Usually one component
> > would be the testFocusComponent -- the thing being tested -- while
> > others would be incidental (but potentially important) bits like the
> > OS and hardware.    The components are probably Releases, as in:
> >
> > class Release
> > class Project
> >
> >    a Project has zero or more Releases
> >
> >    a Release may obsolete a previous one,
> >    maybe be a StableRelease or DevelopmentRelease,
> >    has a date, a version string, a label, ...
> >
> >    I think the Project has people and web pages
> >    associated with it, as well as the main name
> >    ("euler", "racer", ...).    I'm not sure if
> >    programming language and OS information belongs
> >    with the Project or the Release.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Well, the tradeoff between putting it all in one file
> or having pointers, but anyhow that can be worked out
> I guess. I'm also reminded about the W3C EARL work [3],
> maybe that can be merged in too.
> 
> 
> >    -- sandro
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime
> > [2] http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_Document
> 
> 
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> 
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2003 17:22:40 GMT

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