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

[Fwd: For review by Friday 8 April 2011]]

From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:40:50 +0300
Message-ID: <54feb8261ca4bec6a75caf4a8b0b0f55.squirrel@mail.iti.gr>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Dear Group,

please find below my comments/answers:


> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: For review by Friday 8 April 2011
> From:    "Shadi Abou-Zahra"<shadi@w3.org>
> Date:    Wed, April 6, 2011 5:12 pm
> To:      "ERT WG"<public-wai-ert@w3.org>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ERT WG,
>
> Please review and respond to the following points by Friday 8 April:
>
>
> #1. Separating conformance/restrictions for vocabulary definitions
>
>    - previous discussions:
>    --<http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item04>
>    -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-er-minutes#item02>
>
>    - more detailed explanation:
>    --<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0007>
>
>    - questions to consider:
>    -- can you live with conformance/restrictions moving out of the
> vocabulary definition documents, and into a more specific document?


Yes i aggree.
>    -- if so, what other guidance would go along with this guidance on
> conformance/restrictions for EARL tool developers?

I think that the conformance report should be a separate document, that
will be a guide to developer who wish to create the EARL report or maybe
keep the conformance/restrictions at the end and changing maybe the title
and make it more clear that this is a part for more experienced users,
developers,.... Due to
the fact that the basic scope for EARL language is the facilitation of
the exchange of test results between accessibility evaluation tools,
a clear guide should be provided so as to create reports that are not
random and conform to specific guidelines.


>    -- is it imaginable that the focus (and title, if needed) of the EARL
> Guide could shift to match the guidance we want to provide?
Yes


> References:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues#conformance>
>    -<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-EARL10-Schema-20091029/#conformance>
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#conformance>
>    -<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#conformance>
>
>
> #2. HTTP-in-RDF Message Header
>
>    - previous discussion:
>    --<http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item05>
>
>    - proposed solution:
>    --<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0008>
>
>    - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?
>
> References:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#MessageClass>
>    -<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#MessageClass>
>
Yes i accept

> #3. HTTP-in-RDF PATCH Method
>
>    - previous discussion:
>    --<http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item05>
>
>    - proposed solution:
>    --<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Apr/0001>
>
>    - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?
Yes i accept


> References:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#MethodClass>
>    -<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#MethodClass>
>
>
> #4. Proposed batch-resolutions
>
>    - suggestions for resolutions to open comments:
>    --<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0010>
>
>    - note: item #5 dct:identifier/status code will be handled separately
About item #5, I think that we should continue with "statusCodeNumber"
as it is already defined.

About item #6, according to the same direction with this item, probable we
have to remove the stray OWL citation in the
document Content in RDF 1.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/

For the rest, I accept the proposed solutions.


>    - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?
>
>
Finally, I would like to point out a small mistake in the following
document:http://www.w3.org/TR/Pointers-in-RDF10/
In the table "Properties", at the end of the document, the first
Property is "ptr:byteOffset" and the Label is "char offset". This should
change to "byte offset".


Best Regards,


Kostas
-------------------
Konstantinos Votis
Computer Engineer & Informatics, Msc, MBA
Research Associate
Informatics and Telematics Institute
Centre for Research and Technology Hellas
6th Klm. Charilaou - Thermi Road
P.O. BOX 60361 GR - 570 01
Thessaloniki, Greece
Tel.: +30-2311-257722
Fax : +30-2310-474128
E-mail : kvotis@iti.gr
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 07:41:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 April 2011 07:41:23 GMT