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

Bug 035: Missing Requirements

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:53:07 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=KGhJnqezLqhNn8YYBBEr05UKLrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-earl10-comments@w3.org
This is feedback on the following Last Call Working Drafts:

HTTP Vocabulary in RDF 1.0
W3C Editors Draft 2 May 2011
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20110502

Representing Content in RDF 1.0
W3C Editors Draft 2 May 2011
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/Content/WD-Content-in-RDF10-20110502

Pointer Methods in RDF 1.0
W3C Editors Draft 27 April 2011
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/Pointers/WD-Pointers-in-RDF-20110427

None of these specifications points to the requirements document here:

Requirements for the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0
W3C Editors' Draft 26 May 2009
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Requirements-20090526

So it is unclear whether it applies. If it does not apply, then these
drafts have no requirements, which is a serious bug. If they do apply,
then they should be linked so that reviewers know what requirements
they're reviewing against.

If they are associated with the requirements above, I am not sure that
the requirements are suitable for these technologies. I am not sure
that the requirements are particularly suitable for EARL 1.0 Schema
either, but the situation is even worse for the technologies
referenced above.

As a specific example, consider that out of sixteen requirements,
seven are of the vocabulary. Of these seven, five are generic remarks
(S01, D01, D04, D05, D07), and two apply to the Schema specifically
(D03, F01). Therefore none of the requirements about the vocabulary
apply specifically to the technologies above.

The only requirement, one which doesn't pertain to the nature of the
vocabulary, which seems to refer specifically to these technologies is
F03. That there is only a single specific requirement for the
technologies would seem to make the game a little too easy to play, to
make it a little too easy to meet your goals. Of course neither
Content-in-RDF nor Pointers-in-RDF meet F03, so perhaps this is too
optimistic an assessment.

-- 
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 12:01:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 May 2011 12:01:17 GMT