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

RE: Explicit vs Implicit URIs (aka "blanket statements or not")

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 17:16:17 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190106FB0D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Carlos A Velasco" <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

Hi again and again,

> > There are two related but yet quite different use cases for 
> implicit 
> > URI (e.g. "example.org" means all resources available under 
> this domain name):
> > 1. to facilitate more compact EARL reports
> I disagree with this use case. "Compactability" was not one 
> of the EARL requirements. To facilitate aggregation yes, but 
> not this one.

Why *not this one*?

F04: EARL 1.0 will support aggregation of test results according to different criteria (for example with respect to the subject)

Aggregation according to the subject --> Aggregated subjects e.g. Domain, Subdomain, etc...

> > 2. to enable blanket statements such as conformance claims
> Then, let us create a Conformance Claim Reporting Language, 
> but not EARL. BTW, I am not volunteering to write that note 
> ;-) Seriously, blanket statements can be presented in myriads 
> of ways, basically, one per person wanting  a summary (and we 
> have different experiences with that and imergo). However, I 
> don't think EARL is the tool to do that.

"...such as conformance claims", not only conformance claims. Reports that doesn't need this level of detail in general.

> > ISSUE:
> > It turns out that such implicit URIs also bring about 
> ambiguity. For 
> > example, if a new page is added to "example.org" after an assertion 
> > was made, is then the assertion result still valid? Similarly, for 
> > blanket statements such as conformance claims, it is 
> unlikely that all 
> > pages under "example.org" have been tested but probably only a 
> > sampling. It is therefore rather imprecise (but still 
> useful) to give 
> > a blanket statement without further description of what has been 
> > tested, and which methodology has been used to test.
> The ambiguity is more on "which resources are really *under* 
> example.org, than with the moment on which the assertion was 
> made. Is images.example.org included, or 
> www-intern.example.org included (I owe this one to JK)? 

No, they're not included because they are subdomains.
This is why the proposal [1] includes a "Domain" Scope and a "Subdomain" Scope.
If you define a "Domain" Scope just example.org is included, if you define a "Subdomain" Scope then images.example.org and www-inter.example.org are also included.

>How did you crawl all resources? Did you include all possible 
> POST variants in forms? Did you get also the error messages 
> from the server?

You could just record the variables you were using during the crawler.

> > The currently suggested proposal is that EARL should only focus on 
> > recording actual test results (ie. no implicit URIs, only explicit 
> > ones). In some cases, RDF features such as collections may 
> be suitable 
> > to reduce verbosity (still, every tested URI will need to 
> be recorded 
> > at least once per report). As to blanket conformance claims, other 
> > vocabularies (preferably RDF-CL) should be able to provide the 
> > required functionality of expressing these, and pointing 
> back to the 
> > EARL report for more detail on what has been tested.
> Amen.
> > * "example.org/page.html passes WCAG 1.0 CP 1.1"
> > - the "usual" way of using EARL to record test results will 
> still be 
> > available
> > * "example.org/page.html passes WCAG 1.0 Level A"
> > - a contraction of individual checkpoints is possible due 
> to the WCAG 
> > hierarchy
> It depends. There is still an open discussion on TestCase and 
> TestRequirements. Until that discussion is closed, some of 
> the above examples might not be valid.

I can't see how the discussion on TestCases and TestRequirements affects to the examples above. Could you elaborate?

> > * "example.org conforms to WCAG 1.0 Level A"
> > - not to be expressed by EARL but by a different set of vocabulary 
> > (RDF-CL)
> I agree.

I think we shouldn't focus on covering conformance claims needs, but I don't see any problem if, as a result of our work in other areas, EARL is also useful to express conformance claims.

[1] - [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Feb/0009]


Carlos Iglesias

CTIC Foundation
Science and Technology Park of Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, Spain 

phone: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 15:17:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:54 UTC