W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: [SKOS] test cases

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:47:19 +0100
Message-Id: <7A2F4934-3FB9-4A05-87C2-870FC4B527B5@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>

On 25 Jun 2007, at 16:08, Antoine Isaac wrote:

> Hi Sean,
>> [I sent this to Diego on Friday and failed to cc the list :-(]
>> I've started a wiki draft document:
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/TestCases
>> Without a clear idea of what a test case is, and what we need to  
>> be testing, it's difficult to define a template! However, it will  
>> be useful to at least begin to gather information about the kinds  
>> of test cases that we need and particular ideas relating to test  
>> cases for issues, so a rather sparse initial attempt is here:
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosTestTemplate
> [just want to say that I find it a great beginning ;-)]
>> Two questions that I think we need to consider w.r.t testing are:
>> o What /is/ a SKOS implementation?
>> o What kinds of things are considered "in scope" for tests. e.g.  
>> is hierarchical display something that we can provide tests for?
> Personally my first choice would refer to a SKOS 'implementation'  
> for an instantiation of the SKOS model (e.g. RDF/XML file) defining  
> concepts and concept schemes. For these, perhaps  we would be  
> interested in consistency and entailment (following the OWL type of  
> tests [1])

Consistency/inconsistency and entailment tests were the ones that I  
could definitely think of :-)

> But of course in some contexts a SKOS implementation could denote  
> tools making use of SKOS (e.g. browser). Perhaps we should use  
> 'SKOS tools' to refer to the latter category.

Pinning down vocabulary is an excellent idea. I like the use of  
"tools" for browsers and the like. I'm not sure that I'd use the word  
"implementation" for an instantiation of the SKOS model though --  
implementation to me has different connotations.

> And of course I think we cannot provide formal tests for this  
> category. As you hint at, I guess we cannot certify that a  
> hierarchical display correspond to what was expected in the test.  
> Shall we have kind of 'normative tool implementation guideline'  
> test category, if we want to have such tests in our test set?

I think we do want these somewhere though -- this is clearly an  
important aspect and guidelines or suggestions for tool behaviour  
would be a good resource for tool builders. I propose we use the  
draft document as somewhere to collate such "tests" in the first  
place, and then refine later.


Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 07:50:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:43 UTC