W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Audience (was Brainstorm of EARL Requirements)

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:12:54 +0100
To: "'Karl Dubost'" <karl@w3.org>
Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003101c523c7$64f79b60$6466a8c0@K2>

Hi Karl,

To clarify things, let me take your last question first:

> In your analysis, do you intend to have two documents?
> 	- EARL Technical specification
> 	- EARL Primer

Yes, this seems to be the preference of some of the WG participants
though we haven't decided this as a group yet. On today's call we could
vote for that if there are enough attendees.

>> * evaluation tool developer who only wants to output EARL
>>  - does not need too much background in RDF, OWL, etc
> Yes. If they use library, you have also to precise if you talk about 
> one of the syntax of RDF or if you talk about the RDF model.
> For syntaxes:
> 	RDF/n3 (turtle)
> 	RDF/ntriples
>> * (any) tool developer who wants to make use of EARL results
>>  - needs to know how to work with RDF in order to interpret results
> I'm not sure there is much difference between the two users groups. :)

Here I am referring to the "EARL Primer" rather than the "EARL Technical
Specification". I think there are some developers who only want to
output EARL and quite frankly hardly care if it is RDF/XML or a comma
delimited file; they just want to know the strings they need to
generate. Then there are others who want to read EARL reports and
process them in some form; I think they may want to know more details
such as subclassing entities and so on. Our examples should reflect
these use cases (for the specification) and talk to these developers. Do
you agree with that?

>> Of each of these two user groups, there may be two further categories

>> of
>> developers which we should consider:
>> * developers who are new to EARL and need more explanation /
>> * developers who already implement EARL and want to reference the
> A W3C specification is a technical specifcation for developers, then 
> explaining the semantics of the language which has been created. Then 
> it's not a question of being new to EARL. The new release of EARL has 
> to be as easy to understand than the old one ;) I would say even more,

> because it's not that simple to understand the first one.

I agree with both your statements. This differentiation of users does
not make sense to me anymore, I was just trying to get at having the two
documents stated above. As to the understandability of the old document,
I agree that we have much work to do...

Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 10:12:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:52 UTC