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

EARL 1.0 Schema: proposals for issues 8, 12-14, 21-22, 29

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:55:33 +0200
Message-ID: <465BF895.5040201@w3.org>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi,

Ref: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues>

Please find below a collection of some of the issues raised for the EARL 
1.0 Schema document, and proposals for their resolution. Please indicate 
to the list if you have any thoughts or questions, on tomorrow's telecon 
call I'd like to turn these proposals into formal resolutions.


ISSUE #8:
- consider having an extensible list of outcome values (from Dominique 
Hazael-Massieux in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Apr/0008.html)

PROPOSAL:
- While there isn't a specific request to extend the list of outcome 
values at this point in time, it may indeed be a better approach to 
allow such an extension in the future. Right now the outcome values are 
defined by an OWL oneOf construct, I propose we remove this construct 
and add the (explicit) definitions of the properties back in.
- Furthermore, I propose we repeat this approach (of removing the OWL 
oneOf construct) for the definition of the test mode as well (note that 
this does not impact issues #7 & #26 on test mode).


ISSUE #12:
- use rdfs:comment to provide semantic descriptions rather than 
syntactic ones (from Dominique Hazael-Massieux in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Apr/0008.html)

PROPOSAL:
- While the rdfs:comment provides some semantic descriptions, it could 
be further elaborated in exchange for the current syntactic description. 
I propose to accept this suggestion and make it an editorial issue (put 
in on the queue for things to be edited in the next draft revision)


ISSUE #13:
- description of earl:Assertor and earl:SingleAssertor only mentions 
persons but not organizations (from Dominique Hazael-Massieux in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Apr/0008.html)

PROPOSAL:
- The description of the terms in the RDF/XML schema should reflect the 
descriptions in the main (normative) sections of the document. I propose 
we accept this suggestion and make this issue an editorial one.
- I also propose a resolution for the editor to review the description 
for the rest of the terms (also to address issue #12).


ISSUE #14:
- description of earl:Content only mentions content on the Web while the 
intended scope is larger than that (from Dominique Hazael-Massieux in

PROPOSAL:
- If the proposals of issues 12 & 13 are accepted then this issue should 
automatically become an editorial issue.


ISSUE #21:
- consider representing WCAG using Test Case (from Shuaib Karim in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Apr/0016.html)

PROPOSAL:
- While WCAG can be represented by using the Test Criterion class (and 
its subclasses), it is not the intention of the EARL 1.0 specification 
to define such a representation. We may work with the WCAG WG on such a 
representation after EARL 1.0 has become stable but for now I propose we 
reject this suggestion with the above rationale.


ISSUE #22:
- consider enriching the collected data for a broader usage (from Shuaib 
Karim in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Apr/0016.html)

PROPOSAL:
- After some clarification from Shuaib Karim (in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0001.html), 
it seems that this issue related back to the evidence and test 
descriptions that we discussed several times in the past. I propose we 
reject this suggestion as it goes beyond the current scope of EARL 1.0, 
and it can be built later on top of EARL (note issue #29 which also 
addresses this issue by clarifying the scope of EARL 1.0).


ISSUE #29:
- clarify the scope of EARL, especially its relationship to a test 
description language (from Shuaib Karim in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0001.html)

PROPOSAL:
- It seems that we indeed need to clarify the scope, especially to avoid 
false expectations (such as that raised in issue #21). I propose we 
accept this suggestion and make this an editorial issue.


Regards,
   Shadi


-- 
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 Tuesday, 29 May 2007 09:55:24 GMT

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