- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:52:37 -0400
- To: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
- CC: 'Stella Mitchell' <cleo@us.ibm.com>, 'Dave Reynolds' <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Adrian Paschke wrote: >> -- on the metadata: are you saying we don't need separate manifest >> files for each test case, but rather put all that information as > metadata >> in the (or one of the) rule documents of the test? > > > > Since we have an expressive metadata mechanism in RIF, I would propose to > put all the info as metadata into a RIF rule document which defines a test > case. This will make it easier to describing test cases in RIF and > interchanging test cases together with the RIF rule sets. Agreed. > However, as I explained today, to represent test cases directly in the > concrete XML syntax of a RIF dialect, we will probably need some extensions > or meta data annotations. For instance, to define the intended result of a > test case such as the variable-value-binding pairs (e.g. X=1, X=2, X=3), the > intended answer value (yes, no, unkown), the semantics which should be used > for the test case, the test assertions (e.g. test facts) which are used to > test a rule program, etc. I see what you mean now. On the telecon I thought you were talking about designing a test-cases dialect for a rule language that is more expressive than BLD. Really you mean, I think, a set of standard meta-data "properties" to hold the test-case manifest. I completely agree with that. -Chris > > > > - Adrian > > > > > > > > _____ > > Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im > Auftrag von Stella Mitchell > Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. August 2008 14:50 > An: Dave Reynolds > Cc: Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org; public-rif-wg-request@w3.org > Betreff: Re: [RIF-Test] RIF Test Cases > > > > > Thanks, Dave. I agree with your points, except just have a question on > one of them: > > -- on the metadata: are you saying we don't need separate manifest > files for each test case, but rather put all that information as > metadata > in the (or one of the) rule documents of the test? > > > Before we start going through the list of questions, we wanted to spend > some time today discussing the overall purpose/mission of the test suite > and document. > > Based on the charter statement ("A set of Test Cases which reflect issue > resolution > and which aid in conformance evaluation" ) and on past discussions, our main > > purpose might be: > > To illustrate the language and its semantics, including subtleties > and > corner cases, and to be a very good aid (i.e. wide, although not > complete, > coverage) in evaluating conformance of RIF processors. > > Also, Adrian suggests we can provide a RIF test case format that > allows users > to describe their application specific test cases and test suites. > These test cases > can be interchanged together with the rule programs in RIF and can > be used to > validate the interchanged rule programs in the execution > environments. That is, > a kind of RIF test case dialect. > > Stella > > > > > > Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org > > 08/12/2008 04:21 AM > > > To > > Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de> > > > cc > > public-rif-wg@w3.org > > > Subject > > Re: [RIF-Test] RIF Test Cases > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lots of good questions in here which require thought but just wanted to > react to a couple. > >> 2. Normative or Not; Conformance suite or informative? >> >> - Are test cases normative and if yes which categories / types are > normative >> which not? >> - What does it mean to be conformant to the "normative" RIF tests? >> >> The RIF charter requires us to deliver test cases which reflect issue > resolution and which aid in conformance evaluation see >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/TCS#Conformance_suite_or_informative.3F > > To me the test cases are normative but *not* a conformance suite. There > should be no suggestion that the case cases are complete, nor that > passing all the test cases constitutes conformance. They are just there > to illustrate the corner cases and help developers gain confidence. > >> 3. What does it mean to say that a RIF test is passed? >> >> - Do we say it passes if (a) we can express this premise, and (b) the >> semantics entails that all models that satisfy the premise satisfy the > conclusion >> ---- in BLD? >> ---- in all dialects of RIF? >> --- in all languages that we expect can be translated into RIF or > dialects of RIF? > > Each test defines what it means to pass it. Some of the examples > generated before were not full model checks they simply checked that a > particular entailment was found or not found. > > Tests are specific to RIF dialects. But presumably any extension of > dialect D will pass all the tests for D (and if we produce a Core then > all Core tests would be relevant for every dialect). > >> 4. Presentation and representation of RIF test cases and test suites >> >> - Formal representation >> - Concrete XML-based RIF syntax >> - Human-oriented presentation syntax >> >> see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/TCS#RIF_test_case_structure >> and the RIF Test Case Format >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Format for the existing test >> case examples on the test case category page >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:Test_Case > > Agreed with the suggestion in there. > >> 5. Process of collection and releasing test cases in the RIF working group >> >> - Shall we solicit test cases from the community or only the RIF working >> group? > > The working group validates and curates the tests. If we can get any > tests from the community that would be great but those should be checked > and only included in the test suite at the WG's discretion. The suite > needs to be deliberately designed by the working group to probe the > corner cases. > >> - Setup a repository for RIF test cases, like: >> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/ or (re-)use the WIKI >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:Test_Case > > My preference would be for a simple file repository. Auto-generating > wiki pages from the files would be a nice extra. All the metadata about > status etc should be part of the rule metadata. > > Dave -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@gmail.com Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 13:53:19 UTC