Re: Test-Results and Systems Ontologies (was Re: AGENDA/LOGISTICS...)

Sandro writes:
> Sean writes:
> > On the telecon, Dan mentioned the possibility of marking up/publishing
> > results using RDF. This sounds like a sensible idea and it would be
easy
> > for me to produce this. Would it be possible to extend the test
ontology
> > [2] to include descriptions of test results?
> >
> > [1] http://wonderweb.man.ac.uk/owl/first-order.shtml
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology
>
> I've been working on this, playing around with some possibilities.  I
> don't have the ontology or presentation code done, so I've just jotted
> down some notes, below.   I'm thinking of this as a more general
> test-results ontology, not really part of the OWL testOntology.
>
>
> class TestRun
> subclasses PassingRun, FailingRun, IncompleteRun
>
>       I'm thinking "incomplete" covers the "Unknown" result,
>       as well as various sorts of resource-limits, or other
>       reported errors.   None of these are as bad as an incorrect
>       result being reported as if it were correct, which would
>       be a FailingRun
>
> has properties:
>
>    test -- the specific test being run here
>    begins -- point in time the run of this test began (xsd:dateTime [1])
>    ends -- point in time the run of this test ended
>    system -- the complete system being tested (see below)
>    output -- a foaf:Document [2] (aka web page) showing more detailed
output

That's an interesting proposal and I've tried to work
it out partially. For an example run (on my slow laptop
and fetching the files from a cache) see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Aug/att-0027/owl-tr.n3

The important point however is to fix the namespace
and I took <http://www.w3.org/2003/08testresult#>
but it's really up to you/W3C to take one ;-)
The "system" and "output" are still to be improved
and I wonder where a proof argument could fit in ?!
(whatever that may be ;-))


> For "system", I'm thinking it's important to distinguish between
> different releases, since of course the test results could be
> different, and to track what OS/Hardware it's running on -- or at
> least keep open the option of doing so.   I imagine this being in a
> different, "systems" ontology, which would be what the implementation
> report would come from.   (This overlaps with what Charles is working
> on; I'm not sure how much he's done, or how best to share the work
> here.)
>
> My thinking on systems is:
>
> a System consists of one or more components.  Usually one component
> would be the testFocusComponent -- the thing being tested -- while
> others would be incidental (but potentially important) bits like the
> OS and hardware.    The components are probably Releases, as in:
>
> class Release
> class Project
>
>    a Project has zero or more Releases
>
>    a Release may obsolete a previous one,
>    maybe be a StableRelease or DevelopmentRelease,
>    has a date, a version string, a label, ...
>
>    I think the Project has people and web pages
>    associated with it, as well as the main name
>    ("euler", "racer", ...).    I'm not sure if
>    programming language and OS information belongs
>    with the Project or the Release.
>
> Thoughts?

Well, the tradeoff between putting it all in one file
or having pointers, but anyhow that can be worked out
I guess. I'm also reminded about the W3C EARL work [3],
maybe that can be merged in too.


>    -- sandro
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime
> [2] http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_Document


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 18:25:25 UTC