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

EARL, Typed Node Elements and abbreviated syntax.

From: Nils Ulltveit-Moe <nils@u-moe.no>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:09:54 +0100
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Message-Id: <1110316194.15287.89.camel@moe-ulltveit-moe.com>


Is the Typed Node Elements and abbreviated XML representation of EARL
regarded as the norm, or is the more verbose rdf:Description XML
representation regarded as equivalent?

The reason why I am asking, is that several RDF libraries by default use
the more verbose rdf:Description representation when serialising EARL.
However, all EARL specs I have seen have used the abbreviated XML

Some libraries seems to only supports the more verbose (and less
readable) syntax. RDFlib seems to be one of them(?) 

Other libraries (e.g. Jena, Redland) supports reading and writing
abbreviated RDF syntax. 

The example below illustrates this:

Abbreviated (readable) syntax with Typed Node Elements:

<Assertor rdf:ID="level1">
    <name>Accessibility Valet</name>
    <contactInfo   rdf:resource="http://valet.webthing.com/access/"/>

Default verbose output from several libraries (easier to

    <contactInfo rdf:resource="http://valet.webthing.com/access/"/>
    <name>:Accessibility Valet</name>

Seen from an RDF perspective, these two representations are equivalent.
>From a human perspective, that seems strange. Especially for developers
who have a superficial knowledge of RDF/XML and only wants to output the
required strings to generate EARL.

It would also be nice if the ERT tool register contained a register of
EARL compliant libraries. Especially if EARL tools are required to be
able to parse and then store the abbreviated and typed node syntax.

Nils Ulltveit-Moe
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 21:08:22 UTC

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