Re: RDF Core test driven development and QA Test Doc

Hi Karl

Karl Dubost wrote:

> because the two methods are still not incompatible :)


I still read the QA docs as obstructive of test driven spec development.


This is a nice summary:

> Agreed for test driven development.
> 
> * Propose a feature

(also " or consider an issue")

> * Make a test
> * Write the spec
> * Create a consolidated TS that will help external world.




Karl:

> I don't see where the QA Framework is in anyway blocking the possibility 
> to create a consolidated framework. As exactly we don't say, you should 
> use HTML, XML, RDF, or any proprietary format to write a spec, but the 
> final form of a spec must respect certain criterias. A spec in 
> development per se does not respect the QA Spec GL, but the final form can.
> 


Test GL:
 >> [[
 >> Checkpoint 1.3. Analyze the structure of the specification, partition
 >> it as appropriate, and determine and document the testing approach to
 >> be used for the test suite as a whole and for each partition.
 >> [Priority 1]
 >> ]]

This checkpoint defines method - the testing approach is determined as a 
result of analysing the specification.
That might not be what the QAWG intends but that is what the current WD and 
editors draft both say.

Neither RDF Core nor WebOnt did this. I suspect the results of the two 
groups amounted to respecting the top-level of the possible intent here: 
there are some tests more suited for syntax and some  more suited for 
semantics, and it is easy to tell them apart,  but the wording gives a 
method which neither group followed.

Transforming the RDF Tests into a test suite that followed any method 
(other than reflecting issue resolutions) is a significant amount of work. 
The current RDF Core WG would probably not have managed - a requirement to 
produce one may well have killed us.

(So while the checkpoint above could be written more declaratively e.g.
"There should be a systematic relationship between the organization of the 
test suite and the sections of the specification", this would still have 
been a problem for RDF Core, in my view. Such a change, while an 
improvement, does not go far enough to get my support).


> So I said there's nothing in the QA Framework which forbids one model or 
> another. You made it stricter than it is.
> 


I only read the documents - I suggest they might be written more strictly 
than intended.


I tend to agree with Lofton's suggestion that the OWL and RDF TS are not TS 
as envisaged by the QAF.

This problem is made worse by

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-qaframe-ops-20030922/guidelines-chapter#Ck-TM-plans-in-charter
[[
for any Test Materials that it plans to produce or adopt, the WG MUST 
define its commitment level to QA Framework: Test Guidelines -- A, AA, or AAA.
]]

Thus if a group is using test driven development and it plans to publish 
the test materials produced as a side effect, then it MUST commit to the 
Test Guidelines for those materials. The words you currently have *are* 
obstructive. Since you don't want to be obstructive the words should be 
changed.

Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2004 16:09:57 UTC