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

Re: Comments on latest EARL Schema draft

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:49:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4A482BBB.7010107@w3.org>
To: Michael A Squillace <masquill@us.ibm.com>
CC: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Mike,

Sorry for the belated response, I was processing the comments during the 
editing. Please find some thoughts inline:


Michael A Squillace wrote:
> Group:
> I have the following remarks regarding the 10 June 2009 editor's draft of 
> the EARL 1.0 Schema specification:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090610
> 
> 1. document needs to reflect the new resolution to define EARL as a 
> vocabulary defined in multiple specs/notes. This schema needs to be 
> understood as defining the core terms of that vocabulary. For example, 
> portions of the abstract and section 1, introduction, make it sound as if 
> this is the only document that defines terms for the EARL vocabulary.

Fixed in the updated editors draft of 29 June.


> 2. regarding the Assertor class: First, the last example markup looks 
> suspect:
> 
> <foaf:Agent rdf:about="#assertor">
>   <dc:title xml:lang="en">Bob using Cool Tool</dc:title>
>   <dc:description xml:lang="en">Bob doing semi-automated 
> testing</dc:description>
>   <earl:mainAssertor rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/people/#bob"/>
>   <foaf:member rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/tool/#cool"/>
> </foaf:Agent>
> 
> I think we want to define a foaf:group, not foaf:agent here. This makes 
> more sense intuitively and is also consistent with the definition of the 
> earl:mainAssertor property, a subproperty of foaf:member which can only 
> have a subject of foaf:group.

I disagree on several points and would be happy to further discuss. The 
foaf:member has the domain and range of foaf:Agent, because it is the 
super-class of Group, Person, Organization, etc.

Also, a "group" would mean several independent pieces that collaborate 
like a group of tools or people. However, in this specific case we have 
a person *using* a tool (they are not collaborating but one is making 
use of the other). Since there is no FOAF class to directly represent 
this situation, using the generic foaf:Agent seemed the best match.

As said, I'm happy to discuss this further...


> Related to this point, the "Related Classes" 
> section states that, "Rather than using the generic earl:Assertor class 
> directly, it is recommended that one of the following refinements be 
> employed," and goes on to list foaf:person, foaf:agent, foaf:organization, 
> foaf:group, and earl:software as the possible "refinements." Actually, we 
> want to use some combination of these and wrap them in a foaf:group, which 
> represents the earl:Assertor; these are not subclasses in any way of the 
> earl:Assertor class. 

Yes, maybe we want to have something about "or combinations of these" 
though I don't fully agree with your rationale (a foaf:Group is by its 
definition a combination of one or more foaf:Agent, what we really want 
is the potential mix of foaf:Agent and earl:Software).


> (Part of the problem is with the use of the word 
> 'refinement', which in the description of earl:mainAssertor seems to imply 
> subProperty of, whereas here we do not want to indicate any inheritence 
> relation.) Some of this might be clarified by requirement #4 in the 
> "Conforming Reports" section, but I think there is still some confusion 
> between what counts as an assertor in general and what is allowed by the 
> spec.

Right. The word "refinement" is misleading. What do you think of the 
wording suggestion by Johannes:
  - "Rather than specifying only an earl:Assertor type, it is 
recommended that one of the following types be added:"


> 3. In response to editors notes 5 and 6, it looks as if the group is 
> converging on the four conformance levels we have been discussing on the 
> mailing list: 
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2009Jun/0048.html
> 
> so that the answer to both notes is no, unless the consumer or producer is 
> trying to conform at the higher levels. Partial or core conformance would 
> not require handling of the other parts of the vocabulary. This also means 
> a rewording for section 4.4 and removing requirement #3 from both the 
> consumer and producer requirement list.

This had also been addressed in the latest editors draft.


Thanks,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 02:50:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 29 June 2009 02:50:08 GMT