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

Re: [SKOS] test cases

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:43:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4680D1AB.7010902@few.vu.nl>
To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Sean Bechhofer a écrit :
> 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 :-)
I damn trust you about this ;-). I just wanted to mention these to 
mention them to constrast with the 'normative guideline' below...
>> 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.
I agree with trying to avoid the use of 'implementation'. But is 
'instantiation' clear enough for the creation of SKOS concept schemes?
>> 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.

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 08:49:54 UTC

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