[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Closed versus open lists of test assertion
My findings related to use of RDFS/OWL for test assertions are mentioned here: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/200801/msg00038.html The main point is that if using OWL as an ontology language for defining test assertions the problem arises that OWL has an open list philosophy which seems inherently unsuitable for test assertions. By 'open list'/'closed list' I mean this: In a closed list there is certainty (or at least confidence) that the list at some point is complete. A by-product of this is that a closed list tends to have the means to remove an item from the list because the complete content of the list is somehow defined (say with an index). There is a change procedure for adding and removing items from the list so at any one time the list contents can be known and is usually deliberate. With an open list there is no limit to what might be in the list. There is no list anywhere of all list items. And with OWL as an example of this, there is no clear way to remove an item from the list as a result. I take it that most scenarios of test assertions require a closed list as described above: to be clear what is and what is not a test assertion, even though this list can be changed or extended through a change process. This seems to not only limit use of OWL but for the matter in hand (grouping) seems to need an explicit understanding and to require limitations on what is appropriate for any listing mechanism used for test assertions. It also suggests that to keep the outermost set of test assertions for a set of targets well defined ('closed') there always has to be some outermost grouping construct. Perhaps this is likely to be the conformance clause(s) but then there is a timing issue to consider - that the conformance clauses might not have been written when the test assertions are written or that the conformance clauses might have been written before the test assertions and so be unaware of them. -- Stephen D. Green Partner SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]