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 17:54:19 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190106FB45@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Carlos A Velasco" <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

 

Hi again,
 
> > Don't forget we already have ambiguity in EARL: e.g. content 
> > negotiation properties which are optional
> 
> They are optional *if* the server does not do any content 
> negotiation, otherwise HTTP in RDF shall be used. Shouldn't it?


Maybe. From WCAG2 Conformance section [1]:

<blockquote>
If multiple representations can be retrieved from a URI through content negotiation, then the conformance claim would be for the Web unit that is returned when no negotiation is conducted (unless the server returns an error for that condition, in which case one of the negotiated forms must comply)
</blockquote>

Anyway, these properties are optional. We can clarify when they shall be used (we could also do such clarifications with the Scopes) but people could use it properly or not. The ambiguity is there.


> >> For example, if a new page is added to "example.org" after an 
> >> assertion was made, is then the assertion result still valid?
> > 
> > It depends.
> > 
> > Similarly, if we have a complete EARL report (without 
> implicit URIs) 
> > and the content of a document has changed, is then the assertion 
> > result still valid?
> > 
> > It depends.
> > 
> > Then, basically what we need is a 'flag' which helps us to know 
> > whether something has changed or not (as discussed 
> previously in the 
> > group). Then, knowing that something has changed we could 
> decide what 
> > to do.
> 
> I think this has nothing to do with EARL. Tests must have a 
> timestamp. 
> Whatever happens afterwards it is beyond the scope of EARL. 
> The Web is intended to change ...


<blockquote>
F03: EARL 1.0 should support persistency of the validity of the results with respect to modifications or variations of the subject due to its dynamic nature where applicable
</blockquote>

If we want to support persistency it would be very valuable to know when something has changed.


> >> 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.
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe we have a good use case for the 
> earl:methodology/earl:evidence 
> > after all: EARL blanket statements pointing to EARL 
> detailed reports?
> 
> I believe David pointed out already that he does not 
> understand this methodology purpose, neither do I.


Neither you nor I.

But at this point I think we could advance using this concept (something that provides more background information we can call it detailedURIs until we have a best name).
Trying to get some advance, this is a proposal:

- Web unit, Directory, Domain, Subdomain, etc... are all useful concepts for Web Validation (I'd like to know that this bulk of URIs belong all to the same directory --> semantics).
- Blanket statements are useful sometimes (High level reports with no need of detail).
- Sometimes (Maybe most of them from the Web evaluator point of view) having detailed URIs is a must.

So my proposal is incorporate the scope concepts to the language (because I think it's really useful to know when a group of URIs belongs to the same directory, domain, subdomain, etc.) and provide an optional mechanism (clarifying when it should be required and when not) to allow detailed URIs when neccessary.

E.g. (a really rough one)

<earl:WebContent rdf:ID="web-site">
  <dc:title xml:lang="en">Some Web Site</dc:title> 
  <dc:description xml:lang="en">The best Web site of the world</dc:description> 
  <earl:uri rdf:resource="http://example.org/"/>
  <earl:scope rdf:nodeID="Domain"/>
  <earl:detailedURIs rdf:nodeID="Details1"/>
  <earl:exception rdf:nodeID="private-part"/>
  <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gDate">2006-01-01</dc:date> 
</earl:WebContent>

<earl:Exception rdf:nodeID="private-part">
  <earl:uri rdf:resource="http://example.org/private/"/>
  <earl:scope rdf:nodeID="Directory"/>     
  <earl:detailedURIs rdf:nodeID="Details2"/>    
</earl:Exception>

<rdf:Seq rdf:nodeID="Details1">
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://example.org/index.htm"/>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://example.org/1.htm"/>
...
</rdf:Seq>

<rdf:Seq rdf:nodeID="Details2">
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://example.org/private/index.htm"/>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://example.org/private/1.htm"/>
...
</rdf:Seq>

<earl:Scope rdf:nodeID="Domain">
  <dc:title xml:lang="en">Domain Scope</dc:title>
  <dc:description xml:lang="en">All the resources within the specified domain</dc:description>    
  <earl:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL/nmg-strawman#domain"/>    
</earl:Scope>

<earl:Scope rdf:nodeID="Directory">
  <dc:title xml:lang="en">Directory Scope</dc:title>
  <dc:description xml:lang="en">All the resources within the specified directory</dc:description>    
  <earl:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL/nmg-strawman#directory"/>
</earl:Scope>



> We are 
> making EARL unnecessarily complicated.

Unnecessarily for your requirements I suppose.

Regards,
CI.
 
--------------------------------------

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 15:55:12 GMT

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