Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Test Case Format
From RIF
Contents
- 1 Overview
- 2 Properties of all Tests
- 2.1 Property: "Test_Type"
- 2.2 Property: "Title"
- 2.3 Property: "Feature Group"
- 2.4 Property: "Dialect"
- 2.5 Property: "Related Issue"
- 2.6 Property: "Spec Ref"
- 2.7 Property: "Purpose"
- 2.8 Property: "Description"
- 2.9 Property: "Status"
- 2.10 Property: "Approval"
- 2.11 Property: "Syntax"
- 2.12 Property: "Contributor"
- 2.13 Property: "Bugs"
- 2.14 Property: "See_Also"
- 3 Properties of ConsistencyTest and SyntaxTest
- 4 Properties of Entailment Tests
- 5 Imports Test
Overview
This page serves two purposes:
- It provides documentation for the test case metadata. It is supposed to answer questions about what a "test description" or "test name", etc, are supposed to be. It's not great at this so far.
- It defines the test case metadata format in a which which software can use to extract test cases from the wiki. As such, the format here is not arbitrary.
Current status is kind of up in the air....
The properties for each test case (and more generally, the ontology of test cases) is based on the W3C QA Working Group's Test Metadata Note. Changes are noted.
Properties of all Tests
These are, in principal, appropriate for everything. The specializations for OWL and RIF (or whatever) are in the Test class hierachy, the input/result properties (on the elements in the class hierarchy), and in the feature groups (which items are allowed).
Property: "Test_Type"
| Name | Test_Type |
|---|---|
| Description | Which basic kind of test is this |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | Yes |
| Format | Subject Link |
| Example | PositiveEntailmentTest |
| See Also | |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent |  http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Test_Type |
Property: "Title"
| Name | Title |
|---|---|
| Description | |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | Yes |
| Format | Plain Text |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Title |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#title
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Title |
Property: "Feature Group"
| Name | Feature Group |
|---|---|
| Description | Which group of features (or "module" or "component")
is tested by this test? |
| Rationale | This allows us to assemble the relevant tests for profiles
("dialects", "fragments", ...) which each consist of a collection of feature groups. |
| Required? | Yes |
| Format | Subject Link |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Feature Group |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#feature_group
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Feature Group |
Property: "Dialect"
| Name | Dialect |
|---|---|
| Description | Something about dialect. Unknown what... Use Feature
Group instead? |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | Yes |
| Format | Plain Text |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Feature Group |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#feature_group
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Dialect |
Property: "Related Issue"
| Name | Related Issue |
|---|---|
| Description | What design issue, if any, is this test strongly related to? |
| Rationale | Some test cases are made specifically to document a
solution to an issue; such test cases should like to their issue here. |
| Required? | No |
| Format | Subject Link |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Related Issue |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#related_issue
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Related Issue |
Property: "Spec Ref"
| Name | Spec Ref |
|---|---|
| Description | Link to the relevant portion of the specification |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | Link to HTML Content |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Spec Ref |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#spec_ref
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Spec Ref |
Property: "Purpose"
| Name | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Description | What is this test for? What good is it? |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | Yes |
| Format | HTML Subset |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Purpose |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#purpose
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Purpose |
Property: "Description"
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| Description | |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | HTML Subset |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Description |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#description
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Description |
Property: "Status"
| Name | Status |
|---|---|
| Description | one of "in development", "pending discussion", "approved",
"rejected", "postponed" |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | Plain Text |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Status |
| Comments | these should be links instead of plain text |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#status
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Status |
Property: "Approval"
| Name | Approval |
|---|---|
| Description | Link to the minutes of the meeting where this was approved |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | Link to HTML Content |
| Example | |
| See Also | |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#approved
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Approval |
Property: "Syntax"
| Name | Syntax |
|---|---|
| Description | Syntax of the inputs |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | Subject Link |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Syntax |
| Comments | Not in QA Test Metadata. RDFa used inputMimeType for a
similar purpose. |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#syntax
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Syntax |
Property: "Contributor"
| Name | Contributor |
|---|---|
| Description | Who contributed this test? In the "under development"
status, this person may be the active maintainer of the test. |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | HTML Subset |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Contributor |
| Comments | Do we need Maintainer separate from Contributor? What if
the test is contributed by someone not in the WG? Format should probably maybe be SubjectLink |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#contributor
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Contributor |
Property: "Bugs"
| Name | Bugs |
|---|---|
| Description | |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | HTML Subset |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Bugs |
| Comments | Tests never have bugs, do they? The XQuery test format
has something like this. |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#bugs
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Bugs |
Property: "See_Also"
| Name | See_Also |
|---|---|
| Description | |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | HTML Subset |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: SeeAlso |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#seeAlso
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#See_Also |
Properties of ConsistencyTest and SyntaxTest
Property: "Input"
| Name | Input |
|---|---|
| Description | |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | Single Subject Table |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Input |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#input
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Input |
@@ InconsistencyTest
Properties of Entailment Tests
These are for both NegativeEntailmentTest and PositiveEntailmentTest. In the QA sense, these are both EntailmentTest, but with a different expectedResult.
Property: "Format"
| Name | Format |
|---|---|
| Description | Within the Premise & Conclusion tables, this Format heading is needed to indicate what syntax is being used to express the premise and conclusion |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | Yes |
| Format | Plain Text |
| Example | |
| See Also | |
| Comments | RDF equivalent not right @@@ |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#syntax
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Format |
Property: "Text"
| Name | Text |
|---|---|
| Description | Within the Premise & Conclusion tables, this Text heading is needed to indicate the actual content of the premise and conclusion |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | Yes |
| Format | Plain Text |
| Example | |
| See Also | |
| Comments | RDF equivalent not right @@@ |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#text
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Text |
Property: "Presentation_Syntax"
| Name | Presentation_Syntax |
|---|---|
| Description | A short-cut for Text, when the Format is Presentation Syntax |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | Plain Text |
| Example | |
| See Also | |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#ps_text
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Presentation_Syntax |
Property: "XML"
| Name | XML |
|---|---|
| Description | Like Presentation_Syntax, but for XML, and it's a link to it |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | Link to Web Content |
| Example | |
| See Also | |
| Comments | |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#xml
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#XML |
Property: "Premise"
| Name | Premise |
|---|---|
| Description | One of the two inputs of an EntailmentTest |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | Table of syntax+data |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Premise |
| Comments | subProperty of QA's "input" |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#premise
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Premise |
Property: "Conclusion"
| Name | Conclusion |
|---|---|
| Description | One of the two inputs of an EntailmentTest |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | Table of syntax+data |
| Example | |
| See Also | QA Test Metadata: Conclusion |
| Comments | subProperty of QA's "input" |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#conclusion
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Conclusion |
Imports Test
Tests may involve additional web documents, linked as Auxiliary Documents. These have a nominal location, but any web address can be substituted for the location, as long as it is substituted in all the documents.
We may need to add an actual mime type here, instead of borrowing Format as we are doing currently.
Property: "Auxiliary_Document"
| Name | Auxiliary_Document |
|---|---|
| Description | Some additional document, eg for imports testing |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | Table of format,location,text |
| Example | |
| See Also | |
| Comments | subProperty of QA's "input"? rdf equiv is bad@@@ |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#import
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Auxiliary_Document |
Property: "Location"
| Name | Location |
|---|---|
| Description | For an auxiliary document, what is its nominal location. It doesn't need to actually be at this location, but if it's not, then the other documents should be changed to point to that other location. A straight text substitution should work. |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | String |
| Example | |
| See Also | |
| Comments | rdf equiv is bad @@@ |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#import-location
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#Location |
Property: "ImportSupport"
| Name | ImportSupport |
|---|---|
| Description | Unclear. Jos? |
| Rationale | |
| Required? | |
| Format | String |
| Example | |
| See Also | |
| Comments | rdf equiv is bad @@@ |
| RDF Equivalent | http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-description#import-support
|
| Canonical Link | Test_Case_Format#ImportSupport |
Placeholder
For some reason, without this place-holder, mediawiki outputs invalid XHTML!