- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:35:48 -0500
- To: david_marston@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> It's probably best to back away from mentioning the specification, which
> we tacitly assume to be a document, and express this checkpoint against
> classes of product. How about this?
>
> "Checkpoint 1.3. For each class of product the WG intends to specify,
> determine and document the testing approach to be used for its
> conformance test suite."
>
> I don't consider that overly prescriptive of method, since the very fact
> that a WG was chartered has scoped their work to about this level. The
> above wording also attempts to clarify that the checkpoint is about a
> sanctioned test suite that can be used against the implementations (of
> a particular class of product), when they appear.
> .................David Marston
Ah, but RDF Core chose to not define the products being tested, and
WebOnt decided to define only some of the products that might be
tested. (Maybe RDF Core did define "a Conformant RDF/XML Parser".
Neither group defined an entailment checker, but they have lots of
useful entailment tests. I wrote the first code to pass some of those
tests, I believe, but I wasn't around when they were proposed and
discussed.)
I'm not sure their reasoning, but I'm fairly comfortable with it by
analogy to HTML. It makes sense to define the language and recognize
full well that you don't know all the kinds of processors there might
be for it.
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 11:37:08 UTC