W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2004

Re: RDF Core test driven development and QA Test Doc

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:30:48 +0100
Message-Id: <89D49367-404C-11D8-8963-000A95718F82@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org, sandro@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Le 03 janv. 2004, à 22:39, Jeremy Carroll a écrit :
> I have been told I have misunderstood but none of the crucial text has 
>  changed:

because the two methods are still not incompatible :)

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Jul/0020
> see particularly (a) concerning "waterfall model"
> some of the text that Karl quoted such as
>   "This makes sense, since it is natural for test suites
>         and implementations to develop in parallel - each is
>         a help to the development of the other. "
> seems to miss the point about test led spec development - the tests 
> can be the  very first thing, leading the implementations - that is 
> how RDF Core worked.

Agreed for test driven development.

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

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.

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

Le 03 janv. 2004, à 22:39, Jeremy Carroll a écrit :
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-test-20030516/#gl1cp3
> [[
> 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]
> ]]

Yes and... You have a win-win situation for the OWL and RDF core WGs. 
Come to this CP, like the spec was test driven... the CP is by default 

	You have won time
	You have easily conformed to this CP.

It means that the QA Framework is easier to implement in a OWL type WG.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2004 08:30:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:35 UTC