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

RE: replacing earl:inferred with aggregation logic (Issue #7a)

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:50:21 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190E7E0E@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

>The issue with earl:inferred is described in the following mail:
> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Jul/0052>
>
>This proposal was discussed on the teleconferences of 1st and 29th of
>August ([2] and [3]) with no definitive resolution. However, it seems
>that there were several voice for "Option B" which would replace this
>value with a logic of how to combine sub-tests.
>[...]
>
>Here is how a simple logic for combining test modes could look like:
>  #1. if all sub-tests were carried out in "manual" mode, then the test
>mode of the combined test is "manual".
>  #2. if all sub-tests were carried out in "automatic" mode, then the
>test mode of the combined test is "automatic".
>  # 3. any combination of "manual", "automatic", or "semi-automatic"
>concludes that the test mode is "semi-automatic".
 
I think we can create simple rules that cover every combination, 
something like:
 
IF all sub-tests were carried out in the same mode
    the test mode of the combined test is the same.
ELSE
   IF there is at least a mixed (or undisclosed) mode
        the test mode of the combined test is mixed
   ELSE
       IF there is at least a manual mode
            the test mode is manual
       ELSE
           IF there is at least a semiautomatic mode
               the test mode is semiautomatic
           ELSE
               IF there is at least a automatic mode
                   the test mode is automatic
 
>It is also possible to keep "inferred" as an additional modifier to the
>test mode. However, this leads back to the question of where was it
>inferred from and how -the "evidence" discussion we agreed was out of
>scope for EARL (but rather part of a test description language).

So, this leads also back to the same conclusion we reached before: This 
is something for a Test Description Language, not for EARL.
 
>Any thoughts or comments on the above?

+1 for "Option B"
 
Regards,
 CI.
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 09:50:31 GMT

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