Re: Test Metadata in RDF

Thanks for this very good work.  I accessed the RDF/XML format mentioned 
following.
Listed are my initial comments/questions, directed at the
Test Metadata Note [1] as the basis for the implementation:

(1) I could not find a reference to the "Identifier" metadata element 
mentioned in [1]
  in this implementation.  I perceive that the "Identifier" element is 
required, according to [1].
  Did I miss the reference to "Identifier" in the implementation?

(2) I noted that the implementation refers to "ReviewStatus" rather than 
just "Status".
In [1], the metadata term used is "Status", and the word "review" is not 
mentioned in [1]
under the "Status" metadata element.
In the context of "Status", would "ReviewStatus" be an extension of 
"status", a restriction
of "Status", or just an example of "Status"?   Is it possible to
implement the "Status" element without having a review process in place?  Is it
possible to have status for a test as defined in [1] without the concept of 
"review"?

(3) I noted that the implementation seemed to refer to "test case", but [1] 
refers to just "test" (without "case").  Is there a difference implied 
between use of "test" and "test case"?   SIDE NOTE: I think that to the 
maximum extent possible, terminology used should be consistent across 
specs/notes/implementations, unless there is a well-defined reason to do 
otherwise (and perhaps that reason should be documented?).
Perhaps there are such reasons for usage in for these terms..

(4) Are the terms "requirement set" and "execution conditions" (from 
contents of "comments" tags for ..test-description#SpecificationTestCase 
and ..test-description#TestCase)
defined in the context of this implementation?
  Would it perhaps be better to just use "requirement" (delete "set")?
Would it perhaps be better to just use "test environment"
(or similar term) instead of "execution conditions"?   NOTE: The concept 
that a test "relates" to a
requirement seems somewhat ambiguous to me.  Would a more specific usage be 
"evaluates conformance to a requirement"..?    Should "compliance" as used 
in the implementation be replaced with "conformance" where "compliance" 
occurs?

(5) In the implementation, I am unclear as to the differences between 
"accepted"
and "approved" in "ReviewStatus", as implemented.
What is the specific difference between "first review" (in "accepted") and 
"review process"
(in "approved")?  What is the
specific difference between "valid for further processing" (in "accepted") 
and "was approved"
(in "approved")?  Does
"valid" in the context of "approved" imply "validity" as used in W3C?  Is 
an "item"
another term for "test" in the implementation?

(7) I noted these possible minor typos in the implementation: "input" 
should be "inputs", "precondition" should be "preconditions", and "lead" 
should be "led" (to match metadata terms from [1])?

(8) For "testdescription#specificationReference" near the end of the 
implementation, should the language
in the "comment" tag match the Section 2.6 SpecRef metadata term language 
in [1] (that is, use "identification of the portion of
of the specification tested by this test" language (from Section 2.6 of 
[1]) in the implementation,
rather than "a description or a link of what part of which specification 
led to the creation of
this test..", which is what is currently used in the implementation?

(9) I did not notice "Grouping" and "SeeAlso" metadata terms from [1] 
implemented, but
these are optional?


Thanks again and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-test-metadata-20050914/



                At 01:03 PM 3/13/2006 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>As discussed during the IG F2F in Cannes:
>Le mercredi 08 mars 2006 à 14:23 +0900, Karl Dubost a écrit :
> >       * ACTION: Dom to propose an implementation of Test Metadata in
> >         RDF. Deadline: Mid-March
> >       * ACTION: Patrick, Tim and Snorre to review Dom'simplementation of
> >         Test Metadata in RDF
>
>I've started a first implementation of the test metadata defined in the
>QA WG Note [1] in RDF; it's available both in N3 and RDF/XML formats:
>http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description.n3
>http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description.rdf
>
>It implements most of what the note talks about, esp. the required
>items, except for versioning since I couldn't find a way to express this
>in a way that wouldn't restrict too much the potential usage of the
>property.
>
>Comments and suggestions welcome.
>
>Dom
>
>1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-test-metadata-20050914/
>--
>Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/ERCIM
>mailto:dom@w3.org

Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 14:52:56 UTC