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

Re: Updated EARL 1.0 Schema Editors' Draft

From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:55:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4507FFCE.5020301@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> * 1.1 Structure of EARL Results
> 
> "Test Subject
>   This can include: Web pages, tools..."
> 
> IMO it should be: Web CONTENT, tools...

These are only examples. Or do you dislike the word "pages"?

> "Test requirement
>   What are we evaluating the subject against?..."
> 
> IMO we should adopt the new wording to avoid confusion (i.e. "Test
> Criteria" instead of "Test requirement").

Yep, but the singular is "criterion".

> The same applies to the rest
> of the document (Examples 2 and 3, the introduction at the 2.1 Assertion
> section and the earl:result description at the same section)
> 
> Other times "Test Statement"  is used to refeer "Test Criteria", again I
> suggest use always "Test Criteria" (This happens in the earl:test
> description

Didn't we want to call the property earl:testable?

> at the 2.1 Assertion section and in the earl:fail and
> earl:notApplicable descriptions at the 2.6.1 Validity level section)
> 
> 
> * 2.2 Assertor
> 
> "foaf:Agent
>   ... An Agent is a super class of foaf:Person, foaf:Organization and
> foaf:Group which can all be used to describe an Assertor..."
> 
> Due to this description I think that the previous foaf:Person section is
> redundant and not necessary (why a section for Person and not for
> Organization or Group?)

How about something like:

   The assertor must be a foaf:Agent or a subclass thereof (e.g.
   foaf:Person, foaf:Organization, foaf:Group or earl:Software).

Following some information on foaf:Agent and subclasses.

> * 2.5 Test Mode
> 
> "earl:mixed
>   Where there is no detailed information about the test mode
> available..."
> 
> IMO should be something like:
> 
>   Where THE TEST WAS PERFORMED BY AN UNKNOW COMBINATION OF AGENTS AND/OR
> TOOLS...
> 
> To avoid confusion with an "unknow" mode (no information at all)

Do we have an "unknown" mode?

> * 2.6.2 Confidence Level
> 
> "...This may be used where a tool wants to assert..."
> 
> Is the confidence level supossed to be just for tools?

s/a tool/an assertor/

> * 2.7 Software Tool
> 
> I find the Example 13 obscure. It says:
> 
> "The software which was an Assertor in example 5 is now a Test Subject"
> 
> But that's not clear in the example. IMO could be better:
> 
> The software which was an Assertor in example 5 could also be used as a
> Test Subject and make use of the inherited properties

and then:

   <earl:subject>
     <earl:Software rdf:about="#tool">
       ...
     </earl:Software>
   </earl:subject>

-- 
Johannes Koch - Competence Center BIKA
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.LIFE)
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628    Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 12:56:32 GMT

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