- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:00:20 +0200
- To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I feel a strong sense of agreement with Peter this morning! (honest) Peter: >I feel strongly that a test is not just one or two files, but instead must >have an attached description and rationale. In my view, all this >information should be bundled together in single easily human-readable document, >which is what would be approved by the working group. I agree with this but less strongly. At some point we need to be able to present the test material in a more coherent fashion than the current overly messy web site. My understanding of the current modus operandi is that we are making do with a few scrappy files and a Manifest file that could be machine processed to create what Peter expects. (One thing missing from the Manifest is "rationale", I am not clear what would constitute a rationle for a test, why do we choose one test rather than another). I have typically triplicated the description putting it in the Manifest and the premises and conclusions document for each test. This is not perfect and is error prone, but I am not volunteering to build the machine processor this week. RDF Core's test cases document is largely machine processed from the Manifest files; given the amount of work that that has been I don't think I realistically aspire to more than that; whilst Peter's wishes appear greater. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#tc_cert As is, I don't think we should hold up approving test cases merely on packaging grounds. However the packaging is currently inadequate. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 06:55:34 UTC