W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2009

Re: EARL conformance levels

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:50:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4A3B6D74.6080307@w3.org>
To: Michael A Squillace <masquill@us.ibm.com>
CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi,

Michael A Squillace wrote:
> My two cents:
> 
> - partial conformance: anything that produces or consumes EARL terms
> So, we have an application that produces or consumes, say, only
> earl:software elements like:
> 
> <earl:Software rdf:about="#tool">
>   <dc:title xml:lang="en">Cool Tool</dc:title>
>   <dc:description xml:lang="en">My favorite tool!</dc:description>
>   <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://example.org/tools/cool/"/>
>   <dc:hasVersion>1.0.3</dc:hasVersion>
>   <dc:isPartOf rdf:resource="http://example.org/tools/cms/"/>
>   <dc:hasPart rdf:resource="http://example.org/tools/cool/#module-1"/>
> </earl:Software>
> 
> and only these elements. By definition, then, this software is rated
> partially conforming. In other words, I think the partial conformance
> criterion is too loose. We may want something a little more stringent,
> like:
> 
> - partial conformance: anything that produces or consumes one or more of
> the basic components of an earl:Assertion (i.e. earl:Assertor,
> earl:TestSubject, earl:TestCriterion, earl:TestResult)

Good point.


> - EARL core: anything that produces or consumes all EARL 1.0 Schema terms
> +1 (just added 'terms' at end)
> 
> - EARL http: EARL core + HTTP-in-RDF + Content-in-RDF
> +1
> 
> - EARL pointers: EARL core + Pointers-in-RDF
> +1
> 
>   - EARL full: EARL http + EARL pointers
> +1
> 
> Only concern is one that Johannes raised - do we need to have
> implementations that demonstrate each level of conformance?

Yes, we would need to demonstrate that.

Regards,
   Shadi


> Dear group,
> 
> Yesterday we decided on the following definition:
>   - "EARL is a vocabulary, the terms of which are defined in multiple
> specifications (e.g. EARL 1.0 Schema, Representing Content in RDF, HTTP
> Vocabulary in RDF, Pointer Methods in RDF)"
> 
> This concludes that all terms defined by EARL 1.0 Schema, Representing
> Content in RDF, HTTP Vocabulary in RDF, and Pointer Methods in RDF are
> part of the EARL vocabulary.
> 
> In this context, a question was raised if we want to have different
> levels of conformance to the EARL vocabulary:
>   - partial conformance: anything that produces or consumes EARL terms
>   - EARL core: anything that produces or consumes all EARL 1.0 Schema
>   - EARL http: EARL core + HTTP-in-RDF + Content-in-RDF
>   - EARL pointers: EARL core + Pointers-in-RDF
>   - EARL full: EARL http + EARL pointers
> 
> NOTE: EARL http is *not* a subset of EARL pointers.
> 
> Please respond to the list with your opinion:
>   - does this separation make sense, and is it useful?
>   - what are the pros/cons in terms of adoption?
>   - do you support or object to this suggestion?
>   - other comments?
> 
> 
> Regards,
>    Shadi
> 
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
>    WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
>   W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
> 
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 10:51:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 June 2009 10:51:01 GMT