W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2010

Re: On ISSUE-26 : RDFa Error vocabulary

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:26:32 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTim1pcWmUMT0TqWTOxrwNA8kpzFy2qghnE6zzXto@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Shane,

Understood...but the EARL vocabulary really is ideal for what we want
(see other email), and is certainly richer than what we have.

Regards,

Mark

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
> Gentlemen...
>
> Remembering that I know nothing about RDF, and I *still* don't believe in
> the semantic web...  I think I get that there is a possibility that we could
> piggy-back on other vocabularies...  but we ALREADY HAVE an RDFa Vocabulary.
>  Its a simple vocabulary, and extending it with a couple of additional terms
> seems perfectly reasonable to me.  Certainly more reasonable than trying to
> shoehorn our requirements into the EARL vocabulary - I shouldn't have to
> squint and turn my head in order to understand that a triple means 'RDFa
> Processor Error'.  What am I missing here?
>
> On 7/1/2010 8:58 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>> So... (just in time for the telco)
>>
>> First of all, I looked at the Earl and related documentation again, and
>> then had a chat with Shadi Abu-Zahra, who is the staff contact in the
>> relevant group and also co-editor of EARL.
>>
>> First of all, EARL is in second last call. This means that while it is
>> possible to have some editorial changes in the document, he does not think
>> it is possible to make substantial changes, eg, changing attribute and class
>> names. Then we went through the issues and we agreed that some classes (eg,
>> assertor, assertion) could be used for error handling purposes while
>> slightly changing the text description of those classes (it currently says,
>> for Assertion "a statement that embodies the results of a test." But we also
>> agreed that the term 'test' does not really apply for what we do in RDFa
>> and, unfortunately, the terms used for most of the properties and classes do
>> refer to tests all over the place. Not only the class and property names
>> often refer to tests (TestResult, TestSubject, test,...) but the properties
>> have range and domain definition that often refer to these classes, ie, by
>> using them, we would assert certain classes to be, say, Test results, when
>> in reality they aren't.
>>
>> What I did is to go again through all these documents and changed what we
>> have. It is on the wiki, to make it quicker, it is reproduced here (also
>> using some of Mark's example):
>>
>> <#assertor>  a earl:Assertor, earl:Software, foaf:Agent ;
>>    foaf:name "RDFa Distiller" ;
>>    dc:description "RDFa Distiller Service" ;
>>    foaf:homepage<http://www.w3.org/2007/08/pyRdfa/>  ;
>>    dc:hasVersion "2.3.5" .
>>
>> [] a earl:Assertion ;
>>    earl:assertedBy<#assertor>  ;
>>    rdfa:subject<http://www.example.org>  ;
>>    rdfa:error [
>>        a rdfa:ProfileReferenceError ;
>>        dc:description "The @profile value could not be deferenced" ;
>>        dc:date "2010-06-30T13:40"^^xsd:dateTime ;
>>        rdfa:onUri<http://www.example.org/profile>  ;
>>        rdfa:pointer [
>>            ptr:reference<http://www.example.org>  ;
>>            # if exact pointer information can be provided here...
>>        ]
>>    ] .
>>
>> I used the pointer from Mark's example, though I am not sure this could be
>> universally used. Eg, my distiller runs a DOM parser on the source, so the
>> line and character number is completely lost by the time error is managed.
>>
>> The rdfa specific properties are needed to replace their earl equivalents
>> but without a range/domain specification; here is the schema:
>>
>> rdfa:Error  rdfs:subClassOf earl:OutcomeValue .
>>
>> rdfa:ProfileReferenceError rdfs:subClassOf rdfa:Error .
>>
>> # More classes come here...
>> rdfa:error a owl:objectProperty ;
>>     rdfs:domain earl:Assertion ;
>>     rdfs:comment "much like earl:result, but is range is not TestResult"
>>
>> rdfa:subject a owl:objectProperty ;
>>     rdfs:comment "much like an earl:subject, but its range is
>>      not set to be a test subject" ;
>>
>> rdfa:pointer a owl:objectProperty ;
>>    rdfs:comment "much like earl:pointer, but its domain
>>      is not set to TestResult" .
>>
>> B.t.w., I agreed with Shadi that he would look at the RDFa vocabulary when
>> we think it is closer to final.
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 18:01 , Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Ivan,
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I do not agree with that. Running a retrieval service is not
>>>> conceptually
>
>>>> a validation for me. If a @profile is temporarily down, because, say,
>>>> its holder
>>>> machine is down, that this is not a validation error at all, it is a
>>>> temporary
>>>> network of hardware problem that does affect the graph you get at a
>>>> moment
>>>> it time which is otherwise perfectly valid. EARL is made to the
>>>> management
>>>> of tests and their results; that has nothing to do in my view with what
>>>> we are
>>>> discussing here...
>>>>
>>>> I am absolutely not pushing for our own vocabulary for the purpose of
>>>> having...
>>>> our own vocabulary. But I have not found anything used for our own
>>>> purposes.
>>>> I do not believe EARL is appropriate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have to say I'm surprised that you say this. :)
>>>
>>> EARL is so close to what we're defining here that it was pretty much
>>> made for the job! It may lack some precision in the terminology, but
>>> we have choices there. We could:
>>>
>>> * live with the slight lack of precision;
>>> * sub-class from the terms we don't like, to create something more
>>> accurate;
>>> * work with the 'EARL community' to add additional terms that address
>>> parsing.
>>>
>>> Each of these options is preferable to creating a bunch of new terms
>>> that don't really have any essential organising principle.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I guess we can discuss this on the telecon, but I'm really
>>> against the vocabulary explosion that seems to be underway here; even
>>> if we don't like EARL, we should still try to use more FOAF and DC so
>>> as to keep to a minimum the number of terms that need to be invented.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
>>>
>>> mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com
>>>
>>> http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck
>>>
>>> webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
>>> 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
>>> London, EC2A 4RR)
>>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 22:27:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT