13:02:39 RRSAgent has joined #ldp 13:02:39 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/04/16-ldp-irc 13:02:41 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:02:41 Zakim has joined #ldp 13:02:43 Zakim, this will be LDP 13:02:44 ok, trackbot; I see DATA_LDPWG()8:30AM scheduled to start 32 minutes ago 13:02:44 Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 13:02:44 Date: 16 April 2014 13:03:32 we're using the normal access code today: LDPWG 13:04:10 Zakim, what is the conference code? 13:04:10 the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), nmihindu 13:05:06 DATA_LDPWG()8:30AM has now started 13:05:13 +??P45 13:05:21 deiu has joined #ldp 13:05:23 Zakim, ??P45 is me 13:05:25 +nmihindu; got it 13:05:28 PhilA has left #ldp 13:06:38 Zakim, room for 10 people for 600 minutes? 13:06:40 ok, deiu; conference Team_(ldp)13:06Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 600 minutes until 2306Z 13:07:25 roger has joined #ldp 13:07:39 + +1.617.715.aaaa 13:07:45 we're on 13:07:51 zakim, who's here? 13:07:53 On the phone I see nmihindu, +1.617.715.aaaa 13:07:54 On IRC I see roger, deiu, Zakim, RRSAgent, nmihindu, BartvanLeeuwen, SteveS, Arnaud, jmvanel, stevebattle1112, sergio, codyburleson, sandro, trackbot, Yves, ericP 13:08:53 Zakim, who is talking? 13:09:05 nmihindu, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.617.715.aaaa (91%) 13:09:12 Ashok has joined #ldp 13:09:18 Is the phone code 26631 ? I'm on, but it is siilent. 13:09:39 codyburleson, it is the regular one 13:09:49 codyburleson: yes, use the regular one please 13:09:52 OK 13:09:57 codyburleson, 53794 13:10:08 Scribe: SteveS 13:10:32 Arnaud: shut up, we are going 13:11:01 +[IPcaller] 13:11:08 Zakim, IPcaller is me. 13:11:09 +codyburleson; got it 13:11:10 reviewing agenda for the day: primer, test suite, LDP.next, access control, patch 13:11:18 …can talk more about paging 13:11:26 JohnArwe has joined #ldp 13:11:54 Topic: Primer 13:12:06 -codyburleson 13:12:13 Latest draft: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/ldp-primer/ldp-primer.html 13:12:48 +[IPcaller] 13:12:55 Not a required deliverable but WG felt strongly about providing it 13:12:57 Xakim, IPcaller is me. 13:13:06 Zakim, IPcaller is me. 13:13:06 +codyburleson; got it 13:13:19 …haven’t published yet and need to do that. 13:13:42 Zakim, who is talking? 13:13:52 roger: nmihindu and I have spoke on this topic this morning 13:13:53 codyburleson, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 13:14:04 codyburleson, roger is talking now 13:14:18 Roger is updating us on the state of the primer 13:14:41 roger: need to bring a few more things to be current with the spec, including paging stuff 13:15:13 …thiniking end of the month (April 30th) as a deliverable 13:15:32 Arnaud: would have a draft to review by April 28th? 13:16:28 SteveS: what is the date for publish request? 13:17:39 Arnaud: a few weeks after April 28th 13:17:50 SteveS: when do we need to have spec updated for CR publication? 13:18:15 Arnaud: a few weeks, awaiting responses from commenters and go through the review from the directors 13:18:59 Aranud, it would be a good to have a link from the spec. 13:19:19 Arnaud: fine if CR draft has links to editor’s draft 13:20:15 we can always update the primer afterwards, right ? It will be a pity to loose a link from the spec. 13:20:24 Arnaud: looking for people to assigned as reviewer 13:21:12 SteveS: will review primer 13:21:16 TallTed has joined #ldp 13:21:45 Arnaud: so Ashok and SteveS will be assigned reviewers 13:22:14 …just primer editors will have a draft ready for review by April 28th 13:22:43 +1 for removing paging for the moment 13:22:46 Arnaud: should we remove paging from primer? 13:23:00 betehess has joined #ldp 13:23:45 TallTed: think most people will start with primer so would be good to touch on it 13:24:06 SteveS: suggests we republish once we have ldp-primer further along 13:24:49 Arnaud: thinks we should wait to update primer when ldp-paging is available 13:25:33 Ashok: we could use primer to flush out some design/feedback on paging 13:25:45 SteveS: suggests we use the current draft of ldp-primer spec 13:26:31 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/ldp-primer/ldp-primer.html 13:26:48 roger: wanted to float something by the WG with approach to pictures and diagrams 13:27:09 +??P53 13:27:10 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ia8NYiskrmA0aWtJNumtp-bcaQ3vU9ILGVS4bVU6mIs/edit#heading=h.4q8pyvowg0rj 13:27:15 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1YkG0psUrOB5btd3ccTpTeT8QbdFcSV9zqqpeOBbuj1E/edit?usp=sharing 13:27:22 Zakim, ??P53 is me 13:27:22 +BartvanLeeuwen; got it 13:28:46 roger: (explaining the charts he shared from link above) 13:31:09 Arnaud: concerned about introducing new terminology, like specific/non-specific 13:32:05 roger: not tied to it but wanted a way to describe it 13:33:48 yes, slide 3 13:33:53 BartvanLeeuwen, slide 3 13:35:05 Ashok: would be good to label / understand the container 13:35:19 nmihindu, thx 13:35:40 Generic / vanilla LDP vs Application / domain specific 13:36:08 roger: needed term for application/domain specific stuff 13:36:26 sergio, ok 13:37:23 sandro: not sure what to use, perhaps degree of focus. In SPARQL is concise bounded description 13:38:26 Arnaud: wonder if trying to define “where the triples live” or not? 13:39:07 sandro: understand it as when you build an LDP application, you need to make some descisions on scope of resources, types of containers, etc 13:39:44 roger: primer focuses on bug tracker example and demonstrates various kinds of resources 13:40:14 …then we’ll have some “blob” sample (generic/vanilla) as well 13:41:40 sandro: thinks photo album would be good example of binary type resources and data about them, bug tracking more focused on the RDF Source end 13:41:55 roger: current bug tracker has binary resources via attachments 13:42:17 slide 4 13:43:36 Sandro, we were kind of inspired by rww.io 13:45:04 sandro: thinks the file system example is a bit dangerous example of LDP 13:45:23 SteveS: it is trying to be an example of vanilla servers 13:46:48 TallTed, we can change the filesystem example to a photo manager. It fits with the flow of the example that we have now. 13:47:18 TallTed: currnet examples feel like they aren’t hitting the mark, thinks the photo album is a good example/case…where there is data about photos, people, different views of these photos (albums) 13:48:24 nmihindu: it would be easy enough to move the file system to the photo album one. we should have a simple example with basic container 13:49:01 Ashok: wondered where the RDF should be with this 13:49:19 roger: hoping to just have a high-level picture/description 13:50:21 nmihindu: but may be it is good to separate the basic concepts (Basic Container) from the advanced concept of Direct and Indirect containers and the results of posting to them into two separate examples 13:51:34 sandro: would be good to help to get the understanding of hierarchies may not match file system examples 13:52:49 roger: would be hard to switch to photo album example 13:52:50 Sandro, if necessary we can point the BP regarding hierarchical URL in the primer not to make any confusion 13:52:53 slide 5 13:53:43 Arnaud: sounds pretty ambitous based current state by 28th 13:53:55 roger: you can do anything if you put your mind to it 13:54:40 roger: The pictures need a little work but are to add into in support of it 13:55:37 Arnaud: think the primer should be how you use the spec to handle some scenarios, find what it is structured that way and helpful 13:56:31 MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp 13:56:53 Arnaud, we have most of the stuff you mentioned in the primer right now :) 14:01:16 sandro: be good to highlight the value of using same LDP client / sdk to talk to multiple “photo sharing” servers 14:02:11 SteveS: also would be good to highlight the value of linked data, using a client to simultaneously put to various servers and leverage the linked concepts 14:03:00 BartvanLeeuwen, roger is moving back and forther to the whiteboard 14:03:08 that explains :) 14:03:10 s/forther/forth/ 14:03:53 Arnaud: worried about setting bar pretty high with these high level visualizations 14:06:29 Arnaud, we can complete the primer first according to the flow we have now and may be publish the first draft and then aim the improvements of roger that you think would take time for a second draft 14:06:50 roger: think that getting techy details is good but was looking to get something a bit more to highlight why they should want to use it 14:07:27 Ashok: if we could add a bit more for the REST/JSON audience to understand why they should use it 14:08:49 roger: current primer has turtle and json switch 14:11:48 (general discussion about JSON vs JSON-LD vs Turtle vs RDF in general within the primer, and a little bit spec) 14:12:22 zakim, mute nmihindu 14:12:22 nmihindu should now be muted 14:12:27 Zakim, who's speaking? 14:12:37 TallTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: codyburleson (100%), +1.617.715.aaaa (58%) 14:12:42 Zakim, mute codyburleson 14:12:42 codyburleson should now be muted 14:12:56 betehess: sees a strong push/need for JSON-LD over Turtle 14:13:37 Zakim, aaaa is MIT-F2F-group 14:13:37 +MIT-F2F-group; got it 14:13:38 me want to ask if the preferable way to connect is hangout or the regular phone bridge 14:14:01 TallTed: thinks that turtle has the broadest appeal for things like the primer 14:15:52 sandro: would be interested in having JSON-LD a MUST as well, along with Turtle 14:16:04 +1 on web programmers know json 14:16:06 +1 for JSON-LD 14:16:35 betehess: there are no native browser frameworks based on turtle 14:17:06 sergio, I am connected with both. I am not sure whether they hear the voice from the hangout if you speak through it. 14:17:24 "Nobody uses RDF?" Does he mean Turtle? 14:17:31 no 14:17:42 sergio, use bridge for audio and hangout for video 14:18:39 + +43.660.274.aabb 14:18:47 Zakim, MIT-F2F-group has Arnaud, Ashok, betehess, JohnArwe, roger, sandro, SteveS, TallTed, deiu 14:18:47 +Arnaud, Ashok, betehess, JohnArwe, roger, sandro, SteveS, TallTed, deiu; got it 14:18:52 Zakim, +43.660.274.aabb is me 14:18:52 +sergio; got it 14:19:09 sandro: explains desire to have minimal “sales pitch” up front but want just to jump in and quickly learn about it 14:22:34 roger: thinks it would to describe the different container types and how they are used, for building up the various bug tracker feature or scenarios 14:23:52 Sandro - do you think we could mute the Google Talk so that we can use only the Conference bridge for audio? Or would that mess somebody up? 14:24:19 (Getting double audio; it's a little weird. Not sure which to kill.) 14:24:42 Thanks! 14:26:10 Arnaud: explains that he hasn’t had problem presenting the concepts building up on types of containers using networth example 14:26:37 …putting fork in primer discussion 14:26:45 issue: JSON instead of (in addition to?) Turtle 14:26:45 Created ISSUE-97 - Json instead of (in addition to?) turtle. Please complete additional details at . 14:29:50 q+ 14:30:04 Zakim, unmute me 14:30:04 nmihindu should no longer be muted 14:30:10 ack nmihindu 14:30:39 nmihindu: do it with one sample scenario, if it fits better then we’ll do 2 examples 14:31:10 SteveS: would be good to have them align with something we have in http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/#user-stories 14:31:15 Zakim, mute me 14:31:15 nmihindu should now be muted 14:31:21 Arnaud: breaking for 15 minutes, back at 10:45 14:31:32 -sergio 14:36:33 SteveS, it is a bit aligned with http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/#dfn-system-and-software-development-tool-integration but we will see if we can align it more with some integration aspects, different servers, discovering links etc. that we discussed during this session. 14:38:08 nmihindu, right…just thinking the file system may not be covered but photo sharing is, for example 14:44:46 +sergio 14:49:03 q+ 14:49:47 ack sergio 14:51:24 follow on discussion after break on json-ld 14:52:32 Possible answer: Best Practice is servers read/write JSON-LD (in addition to Turtle). 14:52:41 stating JSON-LD instead of Turtle would send a strong message to the community 14:52:45 Topic: Test suite 14:53:54 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/b3683634c29f/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html 14:56:31 Arnaud: reviewing state of current test suite, which has detailed RDF descriptions of test cases but no executable harness exists 14:57:04 What is the general approach we are going to take? leveraging what Raul has done 14:58:50 SteveS: let me explain what my team has done 14:59:10 ... we have some JUnit tests 14:59:20 q+ 14:59:34 ... did exploration of few frameworks 14:59:38 ... you can do HTTP calls 14:59:47 ... the test case is one line or two 15:00:01 ... the extension of junit is test-ng 15:00:09 ... you can tag your tests 15:00:15 ... eg. MUST, etc. 15:00:30 ... and you can join tests together eg. by type or other features 15:00:39 ... and you get some nice reports 15:00:51 ... we also put the test in a webapp 15:00:58 ... so that you can drive the parameters 15:01:03 ... starting with a URL 15:01:31 ... we made decent progress for Basic and Direct Containers 15:01:34 ... each test is linked to the spec 15:01:43 ... so we know from the report if something is wrong 15:01:54 ... currently the doc is at IBM Source Code Repository 15:02:06 ... may be moved to something like github 15:02:31 ... one concern was to see how applicable it is to LDP and understand the spec 15:02:41 ... and how people could contribute tests 15:03:08 Ashok: are you using OWL tests? 15:03:34 s/OWL/raul's/ 15:03:34 s/OWL/Raul's 15:03:42 SteveS: no 15:04:14 Arnaud: he uses rdfa to describe and extract the tests 15:04:21 ... looks a bit hard to manage/extend 15:04:33 @Test(groups = { MAY, CRUD }, dataProvider = MediaTypeDataProvider.NAME, dataProviderClass = MediaTypeDataProvider.class) 15:04:34 public void testCreateResourceDc(String mediaType) 15:04:36 throws URISyntaxException { 15:04:37 Model model = postContent(); 15:04:39 Response postResponse = RestAssured.given().contentType(mediaType) 15:04:40 .body(model, new RdfObjectMapper()).expect() 15:04:42 .statusCode(HttpStatus.SC_CREATED).when() 15:04:43 .post(new URI(directContainer)); 15:04:45 String location = postResponse.getHeader(LOCATION); 15:04:46 assertNotNull(location, MSG_LOC_NOTFOUND); 15:04:48 // Test it's a valid URI. Throws a URISyntaxException if not. 15:04:49 new URI(location); 15:04:51 created.add(location); 15:04:52 15:04:53 // Delete the resource to clean up. 15:04:54 RestAssured.expect().statusCode(HttpStatus.SC_NO_CONTENT).when().delete(new URI(location)); 15:04:55 } 15:05:46 q+ 15:07:03 ack sergio 15:07:07 q- 15:08:19 q+ 15:08:19 sergio: problem with doing automated, is that there are places where it uses natural language 15:08:20 https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=marmotta.git;a=blob;f=platform/marmotta-ldp/src/test/java/org/apache/marmotta/platform/ldp/webservices/LdpWebServiceTest.java;h=8cd5c69e894d715c51081cd0f04f5ad7b5d9b9a5;hb=f5b5cf0c21ab3ce0aaea1e816658e0aa2d59bb86#l82 15:08:33 https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=marmotta.git;a=blob;f=platform/marmotta-ldp/src/test/java/org/apache/marmotta/platform/ldp/testsuite/LdpTestCasesRunner.java;h=31fee36f06d1369b22c7f9f7f6908608b1316770;hb=f5b5cf0c21ab3ce0aaea1e816658e0aa2d59bb86#l49 15:09:52 q+ 15:10:10 ack sandro 15:11:21 sandro: would be good to have a test dispenser to make servers provide 15:13:58 q+ 15:14:18 Zakim, unmute me 15:14:18 nmihindu should no longer be muted 15:14:18 ack nmihindu 15:14:29 it could just be a sandbox for creating containers and stuff for testing but don’t need to iterate over it 15:15:51 nmihindu, audio kept breaking up at end of each word 15:15:52 Zakim, mute me 15:15:52 nmihindu should now be muted 15:16:42 the reason that Raul didn't put precondition in to machine readable format was because he thought they won't be useful as machine readable data 15:17:00 ack betehess 15:17:06 because in a previous F2F we decided that we will need a back door to the server to check those preconditions 15:17:47 but if it is useful to have them as machine-readble data to do test automation, probably he can put them in a machine readable manner 15:17:49 fine for me, it just means some effort to implement the initial set of preconditions (70% implemented) 15:18:06 betehess: by validator do we mean web only or run locally? 15:18:54 sandro: it would be both, test things published on web or on local machine 15:19:39 betehess: it would be good to focus on executable 15:21:47 q+ 15:22:03 ack deiu 15:23:25 deiu: users will only want to see how they did against the test suite, doesn’t have to be rdf, they don’t want to see rdf 15:23:44 q+ 15:23:50 sandro: need to get format of results to WG for impl feedback, typically done with rdf 15:24:21 Arnaud, yes. 15:24:26 ack sergio 15:26:59 Arnaud, there were two MUSTs for clients but they are marked as untestable. 15:27:00 issues to address: tests formats, preconditions, validator, report format 15:27:18 ok, thanks 15:27:20 such as 4.3.1.7 In the absence of special knowledge of the application or domain, LDP clients must assume that any LDP-RS can have multiple rdf:type triples with different objects. 15:28:31 +1 15:28:38 +1 15:28:45 Arnaud: hearing that we are not going to be testing clients 15:28:51 +1 we dont need to do anything about testing clients 15:30:03 +1 15:30:17 +1 15:33:02 http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleReports/index.html 15:34:15 Topic: test suite report format 15:34:19 I've use earl in the past (validator.linkeddata.org is based on it), and it's the format we planned to generate reports from marmotta 15:35:12 14 15:35:37 Sandro, Raul idea was to generate a report as in the links based on the https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html#execution-report-description 15:36:05 Sandro, as he mentioned in his email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0077.html 15:37:29 q+ 15:37:38 ack sergio 15:38:21 sergio: something that could run automatically and get a report automatically. 15:38:27 currently have 14 test cases 15:39:19 14 instances of td:TestCase 15:39:47 deiu: would make sense that a test case passes if all assertions pass 15:41:01 sandro: how many tests could we expect for things indirect containers? 15:41:23 sandro: A think you'd have a legitimate reason to fail should be a separate test 15:42:48 Arnaud: agree that we will continue to use earl 15:43:27 Arnaud: what next do we need to figure out? 15:43:50 sandro: need to decide which test cases are approved 15:44:17 sandro: explains how OWL worked to approve test cases a bit based on test feedback 15:45:17 In the initial plan of the Test Suite, the idea was anyone can contribute test cases and they will be added to the suite. 15:45:32 sandro: we approved tests based on folks passing, and not failing 15:46:08 So if people from WG could add the tests for SHOULDs etc that would improve the test suite I think. 15:46:56 Arnaud: Have a number of test cases defined, if impl fails either impl is wrong or test case is wrong, will remove test case from feedback 15:47:29 need to set a deadline when tests are done (frozen) 15:47:46 sandro: need to freeze somewhere early in CR 15:48:22 q+ 15:48:37 ack deiu 15:49:03 …ideally go into CR with test suite done, but if test suite changes then have to ask to rerun 15:49:47 Arnaud, may be it will be good to have a formal WG review for the Test Suite document like we did for other documents. 15:49:51 deiu: doesn’t think people will report failures 15:50:04 sandro: people may if they don’t support a feature 15:50:30 SteveS: people will just omit tests for features they haven’t implemented (not tested) 15:51:20 Arnaud: only need to have enough feedback to show things passed and we can exit CR 15:52:31 …CR is gated by exit criteria and not deadline driven, though problem of charter expiring 15:53:13 sandro: test suite needs to be ready to enter CR 15:53:29 …well mostly plausable and a good start, near complete 15:53:34 q+ 15:54:55 ack sergio 15:54:55 sandro: would be good to feedback loop of test suite (document and execution and reports) 15:55:28 sergio: specs with test suite is good, we need to have it 15:56:57 sandro: can we have a usable test suite feedback loop in a couple weeks? 15:57:08 .. in time for the Extension REquest 15:58:00 sandro: think we are in agreement that we need to be in CR before we ask for extension 15:58:13 Arnaud: agree 16:00:05 Arnaud: is hungry and wants a break 16:00:19 I have to leave now 16:00:24 …thinks we should talk about test suite after lunch 16:00:31 but let me know whatever I can help 16:00:42 -BartvanLeeuwen 16:00:52 sergio, thoughts on data driven vs. hand-generated tests? 16:01:01 cool 16:01:37 no much more know 16:01:44 sergio, would be good if we could pick a direction and a common code base 16:01:53 s/know/now 16:01:57 +1 16:02:07 Is this cofee break or lunch? 16:02:23 -nmihindu 16:02:34 Lunch break…back around 12:45 16:02:35 -sergio 16:02:39 SteveS: or split: data driven and hand-generated test suite 16:02:40 thx 16:02:44 cu tomorrow 16:03:40 I can push on the data driven test suite in the following two weeks 16:06:34 -codyburleson 16:17:05 RRSAgent, pointer? 16:17:05 See http://www.w3.org/2014/04/16-ldp-irc#T16-17-05 16:41:59 +[IPcaller] 16:42:09 Zakim, IPcaller is me. 16:42:09 +codyburleson; got it 16:45:30 Scrive: Roger 16:45:35 Scribe: Roger 16:45:47 We are going to re-start … stand-by 16:46:10 Topic: Continuing Discussion about Test Suite 16:46:57 need to make some progress on the testing framework 16:47:39 two approaches : code -> documentation, or documentation -> code 16:49:30 +??P6 16:49:46 SteveS: how useful is the automation, how often, re-runs, etc .. ? 16:49:48 Zakim, ??P6 is me 16:49:48 +nmihindu; got it 16:50:07 Zakim, mute me 16:50:07 nmihindu should now be muted 16:50:26 +??P9 16:50:35 Zakim, ??p9 is me 16:50:35 +BartvanLeeuwen; got it 16:51:18 SteveS, I think it was intentional. I think Raul meant any successful code. Probably can be restricted to the codes that we want. 16:52:05 e.g. test suite says "2xx status code" - this would need to be automated too .. 16:52:29 bblfish has joined #ldp 16:52:47 Arnaud: how to access the coverage of the test suite .. ? 16:53:26 Arnaud, Raul covers all the MUSTs except for the ones that are untestable 16:53:33 s/access/assess/ 16:54:34 Sandro: where are the untestable MUSTs documented ? 16:54:40 More info here -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/e6d8108df386/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html#test-suite-coverage 16:54:56 yes, they are listed in the above section. 16:59:19 -BartvanLeeuwen 16:59:38 Arnaud, yes. It is exactly as SteveS explained. Exector component is what is the Java (or Javascript part). Whether it can directly/automatically use this RDF data from the Test Suite depends on how we implement it, I guess. 17:04:24 Arnaud, the main idea to use the RDFa and have RDF data directly the in document was to keep the data always sync with the document, IIRC. 17:07:32 The main problem is that there is a code generator which currently is missing … 17:08:38 Arnaud: we should switch gear and adopt a more pragmatic approach 17:08:56 pragmatic and Programmatic :) 17:11:48 there could still be a translation - from javadoc annotations on to some HTML - but, this isn't on the critiical path. 17:13:18 [some discussion about mecurial vs. github] 17:14:16 Arnaud, so this executor can be used by implementations done in other languages by feeding it with the correct URLs and test data ? 17:15:13 betehess: follow the W3C (test the web forward) lead on how to get the license right 17:17:41 Arnaud: Summary of decisions 17:17:47 1. Java for test suite 17:18:28 2. Use REST assured as starting point 17:18:51 3. Junit vs. TestNG … (?) 17:20:24 4. One time translation of Raul test doc into executable code, and Arnaud regrets that Raul is present for this meeting. 17:20:39 s/is present/is not present 17:20:52 s/is present/is not present/ 17:20:57 4. use github 17:21:10 s/4./5./ 17:21:23 PROPOSED: In order to have executable tests in the next few weeks, LDP tests will be submitted on github in Java, as TestNG + REST-assured tests, with metadata that can be extracted to form a decent human-readable summary of the tests. 17:22:14 Sandro, is it this one ? http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-license.html 17:22:57 Why TestNG versus JUnit? 17:23:20 https://github.com/w3c/testtwf-website/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md 17:23:27 The overview of test suite licenses: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright.html 17:23:35 because all the cool kids are using testng 17:23:35 So, yes, nmihindu 17:24:14 https://github.com/blog/1184-contributing-guidelines 17:24:56 q+ to explain how the contribution mechanism works 17:25:17 I am just thinking that Eclipse and Eclipse-based IDEs are well integrated with JUnit and that's the most popular IDE amongst Java developers. Actually, to be honest - is because I use JUnit and have no familiarity with TestNG. So… but… I can learn something new. :-( 17:25:24 SteveS: TestNG is more flexible in defining grouping of tests, etc 17:25:31 Ashok has joined #ldp 17:25:37 TestNG vs JUnit -> http://www.mkyong.com/unittest/junit-4-vs-testng-comparison/ 17:25:59