W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2003

TEST: LC plan

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:54:17 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304102154.17259.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

I was asked to draft a plan for getting Test to LC

I am particularly eager to hear DanC's comments on this plan.

I ask for help in:
- reviewing/running tests
- fixing bugs in tests
- xslt to multipart doc (see end of msg, optional)


+ Defects with current draft
+ Entry criteria for LC doc
+ Plan for meeting entry criteria
+ Non-objectives and plans for dealing with them
+ Help items

Defects with current draft

The current WD has three principle defects:
- many tests do not conform with resolution of OWL DL Syntax issue
- many tests are proposed and not approved
- many tests are missing

Another must fix defect is the treatment of tests with datatypes (2hrs)

A further nice-to-have is a true multipart document format.

Entry Criteria for LC doc
Fix the known bugs in the tests, so that, to the best of our knowledge the 
approved tests reflect the state of the other LC WDs.

1) Build an OWL Syntax checker based on triple tables (1 week)
(probably glossing over owl:equivalentClass and maybe owl:disjointWith, i.e. 
not checking these absolutely thoroughly)
2) Integrate that with the test document build environment (1 day)
3) generate editors drfat with lots of defects highlighted (20 mins)
4) fix defects (1 week)

The times are amount of work rather than elapsed time.
Item (1) I can double count as working on Jena.

I suspect four weeks (May 8) is a realistic goal, it might all get done in 
three. (May 1) I do need to spend some time on RDF Core work.


Approving proposed tests
The SOTD can say that the WG has approved some tests which it believes conform 
with the other LC drafts; other proposed tests are also believed, by the 
editors, to conform with the other LC drafts.

Missing Tests
The SOTD indicates that more tests are being generated, and to point the 
reader at the editors draft for the latest view.

Conformance with LC decisions, closing of LC issues
The goal is for a document that would have been right on the 31st March.
Points where decisions made by the WG since then, or defects which have 
surfaced in the mailing lists since then, may be indicated in an appendix.
indicates a bug with approved test 
indicates that it may be a bug with S&AS.
Thus I am likely to demote the test to status proposed and put a link to that 
thread in an appendix to the document.

Help Items

Running the tests and reporting results.
I am particularly keen to get syntax results.
I am also keen to get results for the harder DL tests (which Euler cannot cope 
We should be able to approve a good many more of the tests before LC if 
implementors can give positive data.

Fixing bugs
Appendices D.2, D.3, D.4 in the current draft list known bugs
there will be more.
I am not going to fix them right now, anyone who cares to could do so.
It is probably easiest to do so using the test editing environment

The current XXL version

has absolutely everything in it.
It could be passed through an XSLT transform splitting into:
+  everything up to section 6 inclusive
+ 7.1
+ 7.2
+ appendix A and B
+ C.1
+ C.2
+ C.3.1
+ C.3.2
+ C.3.3
+ C.3.4
+ C.3.4
+ C.4.1
+ C.4.4
+ C.5.1
+ D, references

If anyone wishes to have a go at this I would be pleased. AN XSLT program 
could easily be integrated into the test document creation environment so 
that the transform gets run automatically.

It would be easy enough to add some extra tags to help in this process.
lists the source jsps for the tests
tests4.jsp corresponds to a single test
tests3.jsp does the content of the bottom level sections e.g. C.3.4
tests2a.jsp does the heading of the same (the whole of C.3 for example)
test2.jsp does 7.1 7.2 C.1 C.2
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 15:53:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:44 UTC