W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [updated] database tables

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:07:21 +0200
Message-ID: <49ECB9D9.3020101@w3.org>
To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
CC: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org
Hi,

Christophe Strobbe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> At 10:16 10/04/2009, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ref: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/WebInterface/Mockups/tables>
>>
>> I've made few changes to the database tables, I don't think this needs 
>> any discussion (this is primarily for archiving purposes):
>>
>> - changed values in the Expected Result table [1] to reflect the 
>> latest EARL draft [2]
>>  [1] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/WebInterface/Mockups/tables#results>
>>  [2] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090410>
> 
> 
> Apparently, I overlooked an issue here.
> 
> In the previous working draft of EARL, we had "pass", "fail", 
> "cannotTell", "notApplicable" and "notTested" [1]. The values for 
> locations@expectedResult in both TCDL 1.0 and TCDL 2.0 were "pass", 
> "fail", "cannotTell" and "notApplicable" [2], so they mapped perfectly 
> to the values in EARL. If I remember correctly, the previous version of 
> the database design used these values to support easy mapping between 
> TCDL and the database [3].
> The values in the current editor's draft are "passed", "failed", 
> "cantTell", "inapplicable" and "untested" [4].
> Why should we have to change the values in our database if the goal was 
> to have interoperability with the TCDL format?
> 
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-EARL10-Schema-20070323/#outcomevalue>
> [2] <http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0.html#edef-locations>
> [3] 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2009Mar/0005.html> 
> 
> [4] 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090410#OutcomeValue>

When we adopted these terms we knew we may run into issues because EARL 
is still in draft stage. For now I suggest that we keep all metadata as 
is but change the DB values to reflect the latest EARL draft. I can map 
these values, so that we won't need to change the metadata (or TCDL).

Once EARL is finalized then we can reassess the situation.


Best,
   Shadi


>> - added the correct URI IDs to the Requirements table [3]
>>  [3] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/WebInterface/Mockups/tables#reqs>
>>
>> - changed the field "Values" to "Vals" in the Structure Review table 
>> [4] to avoid the use of reserved MySQL terms
>>  [4] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/WebInterface/Mockups/tables#strrev>
>>
>>
>> I'm continuing to work on the implementations and hope to have 
>> something visible by next week (not in time for the call though).
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Shadi
>>
>> -- 
>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
>>   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
>>  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 18:35:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 April 2009 18:35:42 GMT