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: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:22:35 +0200
Message-ID: <4DA5796B.90308@w3.org>
To: rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt
CC: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Rui,

On 12.4.2011 11:05, Rui Lopes wrote:
> 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
> 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).

To be clear, I am not suggesting new vocabularies. Basically it is a DTD 
(or better, an XML Schema) for the RDF/XML serialization of EARL. This 
would allow tool developers to regard EARL as XML yet make their output 
usable by RDF tools too. Once we have the XML serialization, I think it 
would be easy to create a JSON serialization from it.

I think RDFa would be a great addition to the Guide too, to explain to 
developers how to insert machine-readable EARL data in human-readable 
HTML web pages. However, I think we could create such a section later 
on; for instance, during the Candidate Recommendation stage.

> 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?

This is a decision we will need to make. I personally favor avoiding 
more specs than we already have. I think we should be able to get by 
with a spec for each vocabulary definition (Schema, HTTP, Content, & 
Pointers), and a well-written guide for tool developers.

Let's discuss your comments on the call in a bit...


> 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 |

Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 10:23:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:59 UTC