W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > April 2011

Re: EARL conformance

From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:43:17 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTik3d0NqQAOjLddmhnRZ4HOGXOmHng@mail.gmail.com>
To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Dear all,

My take on this, below:

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:41, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> # Issue
>
> In one way, EARL provides a vocabulary of *semantic* terms that can (and
> should) be used in many different ways. Like we use terms from FOAF, Dublin
> Core, and potential DOAP vocabularies, we also want to promote reuse of EARL
> terms in different contexts. For those people, the conformance section does
> not make sense as currently written.
>
> On the other hand, we want to continue to define a *syntax* for tool
> developers to exchange evaluation data. That is, a particular way of using
> the EARL terms so that an EARL producer and EARL consumer can exchange a
> well defined EARL report. We have definitions for these already, but they
> are somewhat mixed with the vocabulary definition.

Last week I met with Shadi at W4A, where we discussed a bit this
point. Summarizing my take on this:

1) Indeed, separating both worlds is good to further disseminate EARL
as a reusable vocabulary. RDF has been created from the ground up such
that a Web of triples is not dependent on strict schemas;

2) Strict conformance is something more akin to "traditional"
vocabularies at W3C (i.e., XML-centric, not RDF-centric). This has
leveraged incredible ecosystems of tools around XML languages such as
XSLT, XQuery, XML Schema, XProc.

The only issue I see in these two perspectives is the
non-recommendation status of the EARL Guide: will we still have an
ecosystem of EARL producers and consumers? I don't have a definite
answer for this, although my feeling is that *yes*, there will still
be an ecosystem.

Going onwards with the proposal is an acknowledgement of this issue,
independently of the outcome.

Cheers,
Rui

> # Proposal
>
> Move the conformance sections from their current location to the EARL 1.0
> Guide document, but keep a cross-reference that is clearly focused to tool
> developers. This way the current specs become pure vocabulary definitions,
> and the EARL 1.0 Guide becomes a more relevant source for tool developers.
> This involves minimal changes yet several benefits.
>
>
> Regards,
>  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, 4 April 2011 16:44:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 April 2011 16:44:10 GMT