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

Re: Proposal: change the domain for earl:mode from earl:Assertion to earl:TestCriterion

From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:23:41 +0200
Message-ID: <2e7f3df4baec2271fe94df778f3ea076.squirrel@mail.iti.gr>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: "Philip Ackermann" <philip.ackermann@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "ERT WG" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Dear Shadi, Philip

we have used the earl:Assertion for our tool and from our point of view we
think that there is no need for further modifications

regards

kostas



> Hi Philip,
>
> I'm happy to re-discuss this design decision with the group.
>
> The reason why earl:mode has the domain of earl:Assertion is because the
> test mode is not necessarily a property of the TestCriterion. For
> example, the same test could be carried out manually (by a human) or
> with the support of a tool. Proper alt-text is a good example.
>
> Actually, I think the proposal you put forth may make it harder to reuse
> TestCriterion descriptions because you fix the mode they are carried out
> in. You would potentially end up with several duplicates for each
> possible mode that the test can be carried out in.
>
> What do other people think?
>
> Best,
>    Shadi
>
>
> On 14.12.2011 11:38, Philip Ackermann wrote:
>> Dear group,
>>
>> Carlos and I would like to propose to change the domain for earl:mode
>> from earl:Assertion to earl:TestCriterion.
>>
>> The reason for this is that we are currently implementing an ontology in
>> which we are reusing earl:TestCriterion and we would like to have some
>> kind of property expressing the mode of each test.
>>
>> Currently only earl:Assertion is in the domain of earl:mode. We could
>> either
>> 1.) add earl:TestCriterion to that domain or
>> 2.) replace earl:Assertion by earl:TestCriterion in that domain
>>
>> We would prefer the second solution, since earl:Assertion is connected
>> to the earl:TestCriterion anyway by the property earl:test, so
>> retrieving the mode for a given assertion would still be possible.
>>
>> Sorry for that late request, maybe we can discuss this in today's phone
>> conference.
>>
>> thanks and regards,
>> Philip
>>
>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 14:24:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 December 2011 14:24:27 GMT