- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:35:58 +0100
- To: POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Dear all, I just failed to have this ready for today's call but it exists now and I'll extend it before next week's F2F. As we have discussed several times, I believe we need a test suite. Next week's first agenda item will be to discuss the concept of an ODRL Process - what does it mean etc. These are all tied together of course. All I've done so far is to take the first normative statement from the model doc and created a mini test suite for it, which in fact is copied from the old example 1. The current text in the model says: A Policy MUST have the following properties: The uid identification of the Policy. The type indicating the specific type of Policy. A permission and/or prohibition Rule. So I copied example 1 as a valid example and then deliberately 'broke it' to create three invalid instances. The idea is that you build an ODRL Processor (whatever we decide that means) and you can test that it accepts the first example and raises an error with the other 3. For valid examples, I'm suggesting that we include an 'interpretation' line, i.e. this is what this policy means. Some points: - this is just an example; - it will need to change if we formally resolve that odrl:Set is the default; - the external files will need to be created and served via conneg. This is what I meant on today's call about the complexity of the test suite etc. increasing with every rule we introduce. A smart WG will create a validator (somehow). Something for the SPECIAL project? Phil -- Phil Archer Data Strategist, W3C http://www.w3.org/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Monday, 8 May 2017 14:36:07 UTC