W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > September 2008

RE: Initial comments on current POWDER drafts

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:22:39 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281904405559@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, "ERT WG" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>


Hi Shadi,

> [...]
> Unfortunately however, it seems that there is currently no direct method
> for relating POWDER descriptions to technical standards (such as WCAG)
> or to testing reports (such as EARL). It also does not provide means to
> reference the evaluation methodology or complaint mechanisms etc.
> 
> In Example 2-1 of <http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/> it says:
> 
> 10     <descriptorset>
> 11       <ex:color>red</ex:color>
> 12       <ex:shape>square</ex:shape>
> 13       <displaytext>Everything on example.com is red and
> square</displaytext>
> 14       <displayicon src="http://authority.example.org/icon.png" />
> 15     </descriptorset>
> 
> It seems that any additional descriptions about the assertions need to
> be provided in separate namespaces. In this case it is in "ex:".
> 
> However, since one of the use cases for POWDER is certification, it may
> be important to provide the following optional properties:
>
>   # <standard> - references a standard or requirement for the certificate

Apparently you can do something like:

<descriptorset>
   <acc:guidelines>WCAG2</acc:guidelines>
   <acc:level>AA</acc:level>
   <displaytext>Everything on example.com is red and square>/displaytext>
   <displayicon src="http://authority.example.org/icon.png" />
   <typeof src="http://www.w3.org/WAI/rdfs/vocabulary#WCAG2" />
   <seealso src="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/" />
</descriptorset>


>   # <test-report> - links to test reports, such as EARL (not exclusively)

I think supportedby could serve the purpose:

<attribution>
   <issuedby src="http://www.example.com/company.rdf#me" />
   <issued>2008-06-25T00:00:00</issued>
   <supportedby src="http://example.validator.org/acc/1ab3451d.earl" />
</attribution>

>   # <methodology> - the process followed to certify (if this is public)

Maybe you can use typeof and/or seealso again

<descriptorset>
   <acc:guidelines>WCAG2</acc:guidelines>
   <acc:level>AA</acc:level>
   <displaytext>Everything on example.com is red and square>/displaytext>
   <displayicon src="http://authority.example.org/icon.png" />
   <typeof src="http://www.w3.org/WAI/rdfs/vocabulary#WCAG2" />
   <typeof src="http://www.mybusinnes.com/rdfs/methodology#topsecret" />
   <seealso src="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/" />
   <seealso src="http://www.mybusiness.com/WCAG20/methodology/" />
</descriptorset>

>   # <contact> - a URI for someone to contact or for a complaints system

Probably using a seealso againg, but maybe is too much seealso for several different purposes.
 
> Not sure if all these make sense but at leas the first two seem pretty
> important to model certificates (more important than an icon to me).

I also agree that these are important pieces for the certification use case. 

IMO at least the first three could be properly represented with the current vocabulary as suggested above, but maybe the definition of the properties could be improved to clarify this use cases.
 
Regards,
 CI.

____________________

Carlos Iglesias

Fundación CTIC
Parque Científico-Tecnológico de Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, España
teléfono: +34 984291212
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 10:22:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 September 2008 10:22:58 GMT