Re: First draft of test cases

* Raúl García Castro <> [2013-05-10 14:55+0200]
> Dear all,
> Miguel and myself have prepared a first draft of the LDP test cases.
> You can find it here:
> The document includes:
> .- Some design issues (important to read).
> .- Description of the testing process.
> .- How to describe testing artifacts in RDF.
> .- Description of test cases.
> It also identifies different issues to be discussed regarding the
> current specification:
> Some of these issues are related to others currently under
> discussion, so I suggest you to take a look at them.
> Also, I don't know whether to create issues in the issue tracker for
> them or to discuss them previously on the mailing list. Arnaud, any
> suggestion?
> I know that Eric is currently taking a look at the document and that
> Sergio is willing to do so. Nevertheless, anyone is free to comment
> on it, don't be shy.

Eric's belated review:

Excellent job! now the annoying nits:

globally, see if you can substitute "concrete implementation" with "specific implementation" in e.g. "dependent on concrete implementations".
  I think LDPCs required either
    { <C> rdfs:member <eltⁿ> . }
    { <C> ldp:membershipPredicate <mp> ; <mp> <eltⁿ> }
  in addtion to rdf:type.
  use markup to hilight "LDP Core", perhaps following conventions in RDF Concepts
  s/successfully pass a test all the
   /successfully pass a test, all of the/
  If SPARQL tests are a precedent, we don't need to explain why we demand pass/fail claims intead of execution results. I propose
Testors submit execution results, e.g. the HTTP message returned by a POST, and an <a href="...">EARL</a> assertion of either <code>earl:passed</code> or <code>earl:failed</code>.
  does "is "should be related to those documents that are relevant for it" to prev" mean "link to the related specs"?
  if so, i propose instead (with some fiddling around for @@1 and @@2):

    Invoking the tests produces produces resulting @@1 and @@2s.
    An <Implementation Report> includes @@1 and @@2 and rdf:seeAlso links to related documents, e.g., specifications, uses cases, etc.

  I note that you used "test execution report" instead of e.g. "Implementation Report". I can't remember if in SPARQL tests, "implementation report" referred to a submittedEARL report for an implementation or the summary of those which is called an "implementation report" in the W3C process. It would be nice to align with SPARQL if they used some principled nomenclature.
  s/not compulsory/not required/ # "required" is a more appropriate term of art

  I think #2 sounds like a spec for a summary report. I Propose to move it there once it's created.

> Kind regards,
> -- 
> Dr. Raúl García Castro
> Ontology Engineering Group
> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
> Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
> Phone: +34 91 336 36 70 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19


Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 14:04:28 UTC