- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:50:31 +0900
- To: "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>
- Cc: "public-i18n-its@w3.org" <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Hi Christian, On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:20:19 +0900, Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com> wrote: > Hi Felix, > > Sure. I intend to provide something related to the "term" data category? > Might it be a good idea in general that the "driver" for each data > category works on requirements/tests for "his" data category? We had this action item a while ago <scribe> ACTION: Christian and Felix to provide examples for tests, and see if we can come up with a common set of conformance levels [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/01-i18nits-minutes.html#action09] I understood this that we provide as many examples as - in each of our views - necessary, to test conformance. This is then the start of a "bottom up" approach, from tests to conformance levels. I used below the "translatability" data category, but I could have used every other data category as well. So, below is my exaustive list of tests for all data categories :) So I think you should provide all tests which you think which are necessary, not only the ones for "terminology". This might be a very complicated task, *if* you assume a lot of conformance levels, and even conformance specific conformance criteria to a single data category. So my answer to your question > Might it be a good idea in general that the "driver" for each data > category works on requirements/tests for "his" data category? would be: try to make it as simple as possible, and as uniform as possible for all data categories, that is: have possibly only "one" driver for all data categories. Regards, Felix. > > Best, > Christian > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki > Sent: Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 02:03 > To: Lieske, Christian; public-i18n-its@w3.org > Subject: Re: On conformance > > > Hi Christian, > > > Many thanks for your feedback. Just a question: Could you please provide > > tests on you own? As we said at last weeks call, we want to start the > discussion at this low level, so please provide *an exaustive* list of > the > tests you are thinking of, and classify them. > > Regards, Felix. > > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:12:42 +0900, Lieske, Christian > <christian.lieske@sap.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi Felix, >> >> This is great work. Nevertheless, here are some high-level comments > ... >> >> I have got the feeling that we currently do not clearly destinguish >> >> 1. conformance clause >> 2. conformance level >> 3. conformance testing >> 4. test suite >> >> Here's some prose I would use to talk about these concepts (cf. >> > http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/ctg/conformance/bulletin-conformance.htm) >> : >> >> 1. conformance clause: section in our a document that states which >> requirement has to be met (e.g. Sec. 7.1.) >> 2. conformance level: a label attached to a set of conformance clauses >> 3. conformance testing: verify whether sth. is conformant (e.g. by >> running an application on a test suite) >> 4. test suite: used to check whether results produced by an >> implementation match the expected results >> >> Based on these concepts, I would say that what we are currently aiming >> at is a test suite. >> Our test suite should provide an initial set of metrics to determine >> whether or not sth. is >> conformant (cf. http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xmlconf-20031210.html). >> >> For our test suite I suggest that that each test >> >> - has an idenfitier >> - relates to a requirement/conformance clause >> - describes its purpose in prose >> - is classified as binary or output >> - lists the result which is expected from a conformant >> application/document >> (e.g. the string "rejected since ITS markup invalid" or an XML file > with >> the contents which should correctly by >> classified as "to be translated") >> >> Felix might know whether we need some kind of official statement that >> tells people how the test suite is developed/maintained (cf. >> http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/XMLConformanceTS-Process-20031210.html). >> >> Coming back to my original "this is great work". From my > understanding, >> Felix already put the most important things >> in place which would be needed to realize my suggestion. >> >> Best regards, >> Christian >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki >> Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2006 14:32 >> To: public-i18n-its@w3.org >> Subject: On conformance >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> This is on my action item (or the one of Christian and me) to have > tests >> >> for various conformance levels. >> >> >> I) Testing a schema for conformance as described in sec. 7.1. Example: >> <!ENTITY % itsmarkup SYSTEM "its.dtd"> >> %itsmarkup; >> <!ELEMENT book ...> >> <!ATTLIST book ... %att.datacats.attributes;> >> each ATTLIST has the att.datacats.attributes entity. >> Purpose: check the statement "The schema must allow the usage of the >> attribute group att.datacats at every element which is declared in the >> schema.". >> >> - Testing a schema for conformance as described in sec. 7.2. Example: >> <!ENTITY % itsmarkup SYSTEM "its.dtd"> >> %itsmarkup; >> <!ELEMENT book (..., its:documentRules?> >> <!ATTLIST book ... %att.datacats.attributes;> >> Purpose: checksthe statement "The schema must allow the usage of the >> documentRules element in at least one element in the schema". >> >> II) Testing interpretation of simple data category attributes as >> described >> in sec. 7.1. Example: >> <book ... its:translate="yes"> >> <head its:translate="no">...</head> >> </book> >> This document can be used to test the statement "The interpretation of >> data category attributes in instance documents must be conformant to > the >> >> data category specific default selections described in Section 4.1: >> Position and Default Selections of Data Categories." for the >> translatability data category. The implementations of Sebastian, Yves >> and >> me would pass the tests because they select the nodes in accordance > with >> >> the in situ translatability data category definitions. >> >> >> III) Testing Conformance to Dislocated Selection Mechanisms (see sec. >> 7.2). Example: >> <book ... its:translate="yes"> >> <head its:translate="no"> >> <its:documentRules> >> <its:documentRule translate="yes" translateSelector="//p/@comment"/> >> </its:documentRules> >> ...</head> >> </book> >> This document can be used to test the statement "An application which >> processes ITS elements and attributes must process the selection >> mechanisms described in Section 3.5: Precedence between Selections". > The >> >> implementations of Sebastian, Yves and me would pass the tests because >> they select the nodes in accordance with the insitu and dislocated >> translatability data category definitions, and they take precedence of >> selection mechanisms into account. >> >> >> Results of test: >> >> - test type I: Result is a list of schemas which encompass the markup >> for >> in situ usage of data categories. We already have enough schemas to > pass >> >> such tests, I would say. But it cannot hurt to have more. >> >> - test type II and III: Results are "properly selected nodes". >> "Properly" >> can be checked via visualization (as in the case of Sebastians >> implementation) or as a list of nodes (as in my case, or - I guess - >> Yves >> case). >> >> Looking forward for your feedback. >> >> - Felix >> >> > > >
Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 09:50:44 UTC