W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-earl10-comments@w3.org > May 2011

Bug 026: Domain of assertedBy

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:22:32 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTikGXC_OPeGKHLijSObSzJZpcvEkSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-earl10-comments@w3.org
This is feedback on a Last Call Working Draft:

Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema
W3C Working Draft 10 May 2011
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-EARL10-Schema-20110510/

Specifically on ยง 3.1. assertedBy Property:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-EARL10-Schema-20110510/#assertedBy

The domain of this property is earl:Assertion. Why is the domain not,
instead, the whole EARL report perhaps in class union with
earl:Assertion? Note that to be consistent with Bug 007 this would
have to be an OWL restriction or something of that kind rather than a
domain constraint.

Having the domain of earl:assertedBy be earl:Assertion, coupled with
the requirement on the cardinality of the property here:

4.1 Conforming EARL 1.0 Reports
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-EARL10-Guide-20110510/#EARL10Reports

Means that each earl:Assertion has to have an earl:assertedBy. Even if
it were optional, if the author wanted to associate a single Assertor
with each Assertion, they would have to do it with each individual
Assertion. This is more sensible for that case:

<> earl:assertedBy [ foaf:name "Bob B. Bobbington" ].

This would imply that for every instance, ?x, of Assertion within the document:

?x earl:assertedBy [ foaf:name "Bob B. Bobbington" ].

Compare also the log:semantics property in the SWAP tools.

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log (RDF)

Note that according to Bug 013, earl:assertedBy should be renamed to
earl:assertor.

-- 
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2011 16:22:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 May 2011 16:22:59 GMT