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

Re: ICRA Response to Call for Review: Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema Working Draft]

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:16:08 +0900
To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, public-wai-ert@w3.org
Cc: "WCL-XG Public List" <public-xg-wcl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.thjp06xkwxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:27:57 +0900, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org> wrote:

> You invited WCL-XG to comment specifically on your public working draft.  
> The XG is currently quiescent while we wait for our rebirth as a WG so I  
> can only respond as ICRA, not as WCL-XG.

Well, your comments are welcome too.

> In section 1.2 [1] you raise the issue of namespaces. I don't think you  
> need to issue a new namespace every time you make a change as long as it  
> is clear that it's a working draft. After that, of course, the next  
> iteration will need a new namespace.

Depends on whether we change a term, or simply add one. The pattern has  
been for the working group not to change the namespace for quite a while.  
I suspect that will remain the case. But while we have some implementors  
shipping code, it is helpful not to shift terms on them...

> In section 2.2 you have used foaf:Person, based on this term's  
> stability. ICRA (and WCL) uses the foaf:Organization term believing it  
> to be sufficiently stable to use. We do so, however, with caution,  
> making sure that we talk about the organisation whose homepage is at ...  
> etc. rather than giving the domain name _as the foaf:Organization_. I  
> would prefer ERT to use foaf:Organization for Assertors that are  
> companies rather then individuals.

Yes, this sounds sensible.

> I really like the CompoundAssertor term!
> In example 7, where the Test Subject is a Java applet, you give a  
> dc:description etc. and say that it is "part of http://example.org".
> I think this might be wrong, depending what you mean by it - and the  
> fact that I can't tell what you mean by it suggests that it at least  
> needs some clarification.


> I may be alone in this but I find the term validity level  
> (earl:validity) to be confusing. What you mean is "this is the result"  
> and the answer is pass/fail/don't know. Validity is surely a particular  
> kind of check? As the Class here is called Result, maybe you can use a  
> synonym - like 'outcome' rather than validity?
> When I first read it, I though validity level meant something like "the  
> validity of the test carried out" - something like a degree of  
> confidence in the outcome - but no, that concept comes later.  So, in  
> concrete terms, please consider using 'earl:outcome' instead of  
> earl:validity.

As such a core part of the vocabulary, and so the one that is most  
interoperable already, and because it is just a URI, I am loath to change  

I suppose we could do so if it was really necessary, although I would  
prefer to just change the labelling (whih we should do).

> In section 2.6.3 you give vocabulary terms like earl:xPath, lineCharLen  
> etc. These seem application-specific to me and I suggest you consider  
> splitting these out into a specific vocabulary to be used when using  
> EARL to assess Web content for accessibility.

(or for anything else. But yes, maybe these should not be in the EARL  

> Finally, in 2.8 you have an editor's note about terms for a URI. WCL is  
> going to need an RDF vocabulary for the different parts of a URI for the  
> grouping mechanism so we have another common interest there. DanBri had  
> an exchange with TBL and Dan C on the issue and I think there's probably  
> a case for 'someone' just creating a pretty simple RDF vocabulary  
> covering scheme, authority, port, host etc.

So did we. Since we couldn't find one (just an undocumented schema used by  
W3C in Annotea work) we started to write one. That is a seperate work  
item, and you're welcome to comment on it seperately.



   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com          Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 03:16:30 UTC

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