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

Re: EARL and describing tests Re: Agenda for F2F at TP

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:35:29 +0100
To: "'Karl Dubost'" <karl@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002b01c52615$4958eb20$39cf3151@K2>

Hi Karl, all,

> Story: I'm going out only if the temperature is +25C, it's sunny, and

> it's sunday.
> 
> Question:
> 	Assertion: Do you go out? <URI_assertion>
> 		Test 1: if T > 25 -> yes, if T < 25 -> no
> 		Test 2: if W = sun -> yes, if W = rain -> no
> 		Test 3: if D = sunday -> yes, if D = Monday, ...,
Saturday -> no
> 	
> 	Report: (EARL)
> 		Assertion yes, no, comment

I think this is where the confusion lies, and I think some of us all
mean the same even if we describe it in slightly different ways:

Even though at the end of the day, you want a yes/no/donno type of
answer on an "assertion level" (i.e. "conformance to a guideline"), you
may often want to *reason* (confirm/prove/attest/...) your statements
with specific test results.

For example: "I will not go out *because* it is not sunny".

My question is: do we want to include something like (what Charles
coined as) an "evidence" clause into EARL assertions? Some kind of a
construct (maybe OWL, RDFS, or anything else) that is basically a
collection of the sub-tests executed to come to a conclusion on an
assertion level (in this case it would be "Test 1", "Test 2", and "Test
3").

If so, are there any suggestions for how that construct could look like?

Regards,
  Shadi
Received on Friday, 11 March 2005 08:35:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:25 GMT