W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2006

RE: Proposal to add foaf:Agent to "Allowable Types" for earl:TestSubject

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:22:31 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190119BFFB@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

 

Hi Shadi,

> > "The foaf:Agent class is the class of agents; things that do stuff."
> > [http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_Agent]
> 
> Yes, just like earl:Software or dctype:Software.
> 
> 
> > So, I don't find it proper to use it as TestSubject (they 
> do nothing).
> > As I said before, I think that this class fits better as an 
> "Allowable 
> > Type" for earl:Assertor.
> 
> Why don't do TestSubjects do anything? A Web applications 
> also do something...
> 
> More importantly, imagine a browser that is being tested to 
> comply with UAAG or an authoring tool being tested against 
> ATAG. These are all examples of things that do stuff and that 
> may be a test subject in a specific context. Right now we are 
> restricted to earl:Software only (or dctype:Software if we 
> decide to swap).

What I mean is that earl:Software (or  dctype:Software) is not playing
an Agent role when it is used as TestSubject because Test Subjects
always play a "passive" role (although earl:Software could play an
"active" role as Assertors for example)

So, in brief:

TestSubjects are ALWAYS passive roles --> can't be Agents
Assertors, for example, are active roles --> can be Agents
Software can be TestSubject (passive --> not an Agent) or Assertor
(active --> an agent)

IMO again, Agent could be an allowable type for earl:Assertor but not
for earl:TestSubject

Regards,

CI.
Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 12:23:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:27 GMT