W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Last Call Review: EARL 1.0 Schema Last Call Working Draft

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:19:50 +0200
Message-ID: <46331FC6.3040609@w3.org>
To: shuaib <skarim@ifs.tuwien.ac.at>
CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Shuaib,

Thank you for providing these comments, they have been recorded here:
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues>

Please let us know if you have further input, we will be processing
these comments in the coming weeks.

Regards,
   Shadi


shuaib wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> Here are my brief remarks/observations on EARL schema:
> 
>  
> 
> 1.    The given schema had some problems according to RDFS or OWL syntax. I
> tried to adapt the schema for OWL-Full, copy of which is attached with this
> mail. I think it might be better to strictly follow some specific OWL
> variant for the EARL schema, i.e., RDFS or OWL-Lite/DL/Full. According to my
> experience, initially schema in RDFS is best which after a period of
> maturity should lead to OWL-DL.
> 
> 2.    The semantics of Test Mode are not well represented in the schema. I
> am not sure how beneficial would it be at his stage. But later it could be
> useful.
> 
> 3.    WCAG guidelines (initially some of those) could be represented
> semantically under Test Case. This would help in formally connecting the
> accessibility guidelines, software and the test results with each other. 
> 
> 4.    Since EARL is also supposed to provide reusable vocabulary for generic
> quality assurance and validation purposes. I was thinking that the results
> data gathered (in earl:Test Result) could be enriched and represented
> formally so as to be usable on the fly for software adaptation. For example
> the usability of the product can be dynamically adjusted based upon input
> usability tests and the corresponding results.
> 
> 5.    Some accessibility tests can be dependant on various factors such as
> location or device. In other words the Outcome Value may be due to one or
> more of those factors. It would be beneficial to capture these context
> elements. Therefore, earl:context may also include the device
> (http:Resource), because the tests / test results may also vary with
> different devices. In that case, would it make sense to place “context”
> outside of earl:content too?
> 
>  
> 
> A few comments on the EARL document related with typos:
> 
>  
> 
> 1.    Para 2.2; “an assertor asserts and assertion”
> 
> 2.    Para 2.3; “see not below”
> 
> 3.    Para 2.5; Under earl:notAvailable, I think the first sentence is not
> required or needs revision to make its meaning more clear.
> 
> 4.    Example 11; “A test result with a outcome …”
> 
>  
> 
> Some remarks on HTTP schema:
> 
>  
> 
> 1.    Same remark as for EARL schema regarding OWL variant.
> 
> 2.    I believe the “Connection” class should be enhanced with more
> semantics w.r.t. RFC 2616. Those might be beneficial for evaluating
> accessibility of dynamic web sites.
> 
> 3.    The purpose of “New Response Code” is not clear. Shouldn’t it be a
> subclass or instance of “Response Code”? Otherwise, is its name appropriate
> for the associated comments?
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Shuaib Karim
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra
> Sent: Montag, 26. März 2007 13:41
> To: semantic-web@w3.org
> Subject: Last Call Review: EARL 1.0 Schema Last Call Working Draft
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Group,
> 
>  
> 
> The W3C WAI Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) [1] 
> 
> invites you to comment on two documents published 23 March 2007:
> 
> - Evaluation And Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema (Last Call)
> 
>    <http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/>
> 
> - HTTP Vocabulary in RDF (Working Draft)
> 
>    <http://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF/>
> 
>  
> 
> These documents are of particular interest to Web developers and 
> 
> researchers who are interested in software-supported evaluation and 
> 
> validation of Web sites, and in Semantic Web technologies to support 
> 
> evaluations. The ERT Working Group is particularly looking for feedback 
> 
> on how complete the schema is, and how compatible it is with relevant 
> 
> metadata vocabularies in this field. Specific questions are also 
> 
> highlighted within the sections of the documents. Please send comments 
> 
> by 20 April 2007 to:
> 
> - ERT WG public mailing list <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
> 
>  
> 
> Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) is a standardized format to 
> 
> express test results. The primary motivation for developing this 
> 
> language is to facilitate the exchange of test results between Web 
> 
> accessibility evaluation tools in a vendor-neutral and 
> 
> platform-independent format. It also provides a vocabulary that can be 
> 
> used for other Web quality assurance testing and validation.
> 
>  
> 
> Please see the overview of EARL for an introduction and more information 
> 
> on the documents:
> 
> - Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) Overview
> 
>    <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/earl.php>
> 
>  
> 
> The EARL 1.0 Schema document defines a set of vocabulary to express test 
> 
> results. It meets requirements set forth for EARL [2] and incorporates 
> 
> comments received since the 27 September 2006 Working Draft [3]. While 
> 
> this document focuses on the technical details of the specification, the 
> 
> companion document EARL 1.0 Guide will provide a tutorial introduction 
> 
> to its use.
> 
>  
> 
> The HTTP Vocabulary in RDF document describes a representation of the 
> 
> Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) terms in Resource Description 
> 
> Framework (RDF). This updated Working Draft incorporates comments 
> 
> received since the 20 December 2006 Working Draft [4]. It is a companion 
> 
> document for EARL, and it can also be used as a separate vocabulary for 
> 
> other purposes.
> 
>  
> 
> Note that only the EARL 1.0 Schema is in Last Call Working Draft status 
> 
> and only this document is planned to become a W3C Recommendation, Web 
> 
> Standard. HTTP Vocabulary in RDF is being developed to support EARL 1.0, 
> 
> and be released as a W3C Working Group Note. For a description of the 
> 
> different types of W3C documents, and milestones and opportunities to 
> 
> contribute to W3C Working Drafts, see:
> 
> - How WAI Develops Accessibility Guidelines through the W3C Process
> 
>    <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process>
> 
>  
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for 
> 
> your comments.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>    Shadi Abou-Zahra - W3C Chair and Team Contact for ERT WG
> 
>  
> 
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/>
> 
> [2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Requirements/>
> 
> [3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-EARL10-Schema-20060927/>
> 
> [4] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20061220/>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 08:30:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:28 GMT