- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:26:38 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 21 May 2008, at 15:06, Ian Horrocks wrote: > On 19 May 2008, at 16:34, Bijan Parsia wrote: [snip] >> Writing test cases really really sucks, by the by. > > Can you say a little more about what the problems are and how you > think they might be addressed? Sure. There's lots of axis (expressivity, kind of test, granularity etc.) of metadata and a lot of metadata that isn't obvious outside some arbitrary decisions (e.g., naming the test case, providing a description). To convert my table of different bnode semantics and their effects would require a pretty large effort and up to twelve wiki pages (and it's weird, can I use the same test case to cover the cases where both results are identical under either semantics? should I only produce a test case for the situations where they differ?) Some of it is the wiki; some of it is the difficulty of putting together a nice framework; and some of it is that writing test cases is inherently hard. >> I strongly request of the chairs that we do something to move this >> forward. Test cases written in a crunch at the end are going to be >> painful to do and hard to validate. I suggest that we actually put >> some people in charge of doing this. > > We are on to it. Great! >> I am not one of those people! > > Agreed. Even greater! Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 14:24:48 UTC