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

RE: unkown testing mode (was Re: Updated EARL 1.0 Schema Editors' Draft)

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:58:17 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA521882819015660B8@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

 
Hi,
 
See below...

> Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> * 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?
> > 
> > No, we haven't. But IMO the current earl:mixed definition is more 
> > close to this non-existen unknown mode. What I want is to 
> avoid people 
> > reading the definition and thinking "OK, this means unknow"
> > because there is an essential difference:
> > 
> > Unknow --> No idea how the test where performed (only tools, only 
> > humans, tools and humans...) Mixed --> The test was performed by an 
> > unknow combination of Agents AND Tools (sorry, ignore the 
> "OR" in my 
> > previous message) i.e we don't have details but we KNOW that both 
> > (human and tools) where involved.
> > 
> > Additionally maybe we should add explicity an earl:unknow 
> mode (based 
> > on the previous definitions)
> 
> We've had this discussion before. If the test mode is 
> *really* unknown, then it the (optional) property should be 
> simply left out from the assertion (tools can still look into 
> the required assertor class and try to deduce anything they can).
> 
> Do you insist on an earl:unknown value for the test mode?

I remember the discussion in the past, but the recent discussion and
some feedback from the University of Oviedo make me think about the
necessity of explicitly include the earl:unknown to avoid confusion (if
there is an "unknown" mode nobody is going to think that "mixed" really
means "unknown" whatever the wording we use)

Anyway, with a new wording I can live without earl:unknown if others
think it's OK as is.

Regards,
 CI.
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 12:58:29 GMT

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