- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:53:04 +0100
- To: Carlos A Velasco <carlos.velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>, Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- CC: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi, On 25.11.2011 19:29, Carlos A Velasco wrote: >> Section 1.1 of our spec says: "This document assumes that the reader is >> familiar with the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and can read its >> XML serialization." But we never say that the code examples are merely >> XML serialisations of EARL/RDF graphs. Perhaps we should emphasize that >> more, e.g. in Section 1.2 (Document conventions) by adding something >> like: "This document uses XML as the serialization format for EARL. EARL >> serialized in XML syntax is a representation of RDF graphs, and EARL >> test results should be compared by comparing the RDF graphs they >> represent, not by comparing their concrete syntax." > > Agree! OK, noted. Probably more background needs to go into the Guide too. >>> Similarly, is it time to reconsider conformance requirements B and C? >>> - <http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Guide/#conformance> >> >> So these conformance requirements insist on the use of XML serialisation. >> What is the intent of our requirements? To make sure that tools that >> only support XML serialisation can really parse EARL as RDF, not just as >> XML? Or is the intent to require XML syntax, even if/when we switch over >> our examples to Turtle? > > Maybe we could reword them. But at the end, we shall allow any RDF > serialization. The idea we had was that some tools may want to output XML that can be interpreted as RDF by RDF-aware tools, but the tools themselves do not actually need to have any RDF capabilities. I think this is still an important use-case but maybe we should solve this more elegantly. >> Getting ready to produce test suites really focuses the mind ;-) > > Amen. This is exactly why we were told we need the test suites to enter CR! Best, Shadi -- 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 Friday, 25 November 2011 18:53:39 UTC