RE: Error in (approved) test 0009

Dan,

Sooo many question for a simple-minded person, as I am :)

Ok. One step at a time.

> If you changed the content of the test, the status should 
> revert to unapproved, right? i.e. a new decision should be 
> made to approve the new contents.

I'm not a W3C-Test-Professional, but down-to-earth: When we simply 
*fix* a broken TC -- which intention and semantics has been approved --
we do not actually *change* but (ehm what was the word again? ah!) *fix*
it ;)

So, if you prefer it, I'd happily propose to review this one again,
from a efficiency POV I'd keep it approved. 

> Hmm... I'm assuming this test suite is organized roughly like 
> the RDF Core, OWL, SPARQL, and GRDDL test suites, where 
> approval of a test is always traceable to a recorded 
> decision. Is that the way this test suite is organized? 

Roughly, yes. We're still in a kind of learning phase - so any
improvement suggestions welcome :)

However, I'm very happy you asked this; till now I assumed
either everybody would understand the system -- or nobody would
really care ;)

So, here is the idea:

Every section in [1] has a title 'Review and Approval YYYY-MM-DD'
with YYYY-MM-DD representing the date the review took place (in case
of a telecon, or when it was closed in case of a mailing list review).

Then there is a table stating the target TC partition, the repository,
the according manifest, and the review minutes (your 'traceable to a 
recorded decision'). For 'simple' approval, no further pointers
are provided, in case changes where proposed, or 'on hold', etc.
an explicit pointer to the exact position in the log (due to
granularity)
is provided additionally.

> I see a manifest pointer;
>
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/rdfa-xhtml
1-test-manifest.rdf
> I haven't looked at the other end of it. I wonder if it's 
> kept in sync with the wiki page by hand. I guess I'll stay tuned...

The "normative" one is the RDF manifest. What I normally so is:

1. Update/add a TC in the according TC repository
2. Update the RDF manifest regarding the TC
3. Perform XHTML validation and RDFa extraction on the TC
4. Update Wiki [1] wrt the TC

The Wiki is really just a kind of hub and working page for
the approval; when we are done, a frozen version of the
XSLT-view of the RDF manifest [2] will be integrated in the 
RDFa Test Suite document [3].

Cheers,
	Michael


[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaTC
[2]
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.o
rg%2F2006%2F07%2FSWD%2FRDFa%2Ftestsuite%2Fwork%2Fmanifest2html.xslt&xmlf
ile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2006%2F07%2FSWD%2FRDFa%2Ftestsuite%2Fxhtml
1-testcases%2Frdfa-xhtml1-test-manifest.rdf&content-type=&submit=transfo
rm
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
---------------------------------------------------------- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 6:59 PM
> To: Hausenblas, Michael
> Cc: Ivan Herman; W3C RDFa task force
> Subject: RE: Error in (approved) test 0009
> 
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 14:23 +0200, Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> > >Obviously, the sparql should say:
> > >
> > >ASK WHERE {
> > >	<http://example.org/Person2> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows> 
> > ><http://example.org/Person1> .
> > >}
> > >
> > >that is the idea of 'rev':-)
> > 
> > DONE. Thanks for pointing it out!
> 
> If you changed the content of the test, the status should 
> revert to unapproved, right? i.e. a new decision should be 
> made to approve the new contents.
> 
> It seems to still be approved in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaTC
> last edited 2007-08-06 15:14:49 by MichaelHausenblas
> 
> 
> Hmm... I'm assuming this test suite is organized roughly like 
> the RDF Core, OWL, SPARQL, and GRDDL test suites, where 
> approval of a test is always traceable to a recorded 
> decision. Is that the way this test suite is organized?
> The "approved" status of 0018 "@rel for predicate"
> and 0019 "@about for subject" and such don't seem to have 
> "resolution" pointers.
> 
> I see a manifest pointer;
>
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/rdfa-xhtml
1-test-manifest.rdf
> I haven't looked at the other end of it. I wonder if it's 
> kept in sync with the wiki page by hand. I guess I'll stay tuned...
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 17:44:31 UTC