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

Re: proposal for changing "EARL 1.0 Guide" to "Developer Guide for EARL 1.0"

From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:05:07 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTikrAm6AA6qn3cCYZSwhOQ6r_aTPbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi group,

Some comments below:

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:48, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> Dear ERT WG,
>
> Following recent discussions, it seem that there is consensus for the
> "conformance sections" to move out of the vocabulary definition specs (EARL
> 1.0 Schema, HTTP-in-RDF, ...) and put them "elsewhere".
>
> Before attempting to create yet a new spec document, I would like to see if
> we can change the current Guide from an introductory resource into something
> more substantial. Remember, the guide document is on Rec-Track (because it
> has been split from the previous EARL spec).

+1 on this.

> To initiate the discussion I propose changing the title and content from
> "EARL 1.0 Guide" to "Developer Guide for EARL 1.0". The outline for this
> [new] document would include:

I like the new title! :)

>  * combine sections 3 & 4, and shorten them editorially (some examples and
> text are more verbose then necessary)

Yes.

>  * add a section on conformance for reports, consumers, and producers (maybe
> it won't be called "conformance" though)

Uhmmmm, what other title could express "conformance", then? IMHO, devs
are accustomed to the word "conformance".

>  * add a new section on serialization with sub-sections for XML and possibly
> JSON

Before heading onto these vocabularies, I think we should consider the
following:

1) XML: since RDF is typically serialised into RDF/XML, we really
really must have a strong rationale to provide an alternate XMLy
representation. I would definitely prefer a lightweight approach on
this. Shall I propose (X)HTML + RDFa?

2) JSON: in the same line of the previous rationale, we must be
careful with the creation of a JSON vocabulary for EARL. Instead of
creating everything from scratch, I think we should follow RDF/JSON
(http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/12/new_rdf_working_group_rdfjson.html).

Now, do we really to have these serialisations within this document,
or should they reside elsewhere (probably as W3C Notes), complementing
the official EARL Schema?

My 2 cents,
Rui


>
> What do people think of this approach and suggestion?
>
> Best,
>  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 Tuesday, 12 April 2011 09:05:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 April 2011 09:05:56 GMT