Re: Jena implementation report plans

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:


> If a completely comprehensive test suite is being developed then it might
> be a good idea to have tests that demonstrate the presence or absence of
> the various comprehension inferences.  I think there are many other tests
> that should be generated before these, however.
> 


That may be true, but that is not where we are at.

We do not have a complete test suite, and the coverage of the comprehension 
axioms is entirely accidental.

Because of Dave's imlementation style, these axioms are more pertinent for 
him, and hence he probably has a better understanding of them than many 
people who have implemented them. I don't see any reason to turn down his 
offer of *more* tests which help make more apparant the current use of the 
comprehension axioms.

i.e. the WG was not encoruaging me to generate more tests - I agree with 
you that if we were having a systematic effort, these would not be the 
first to produce. But given the offer of more tests that a least one 
implementor has found useful we should take it.


 >>>Possible responses to this comment include:
 >>>1. Modify some of test cases to this simple-conclusion style.
 >>>2. Augment the test cases by duplicates in this style.
 >>>3. Ignore it and leave the test cases as is.
 >>>
 >>>Dave
 >>>

Jim:

 >>My preference would be 2 or 1 in that order - anything that makes it
 >>easier for people to test implementations and to help them understnad
 >>how to build tools seems like a good idea to me!
 >>
Ian:
 > I am opposed to 2 and strongly opposed to 1.


Jeremy:
support 2
oppose 1

(I believe our testing of comprehension is weak, and would be reluctant to 
see any of the current comprehension tests watered down).

Jeremy