W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > October 2012

RE: ERT WG: Agenda for teleconference on Wednesday 17 October 2012

From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:44:35 +0300
Message-ID: <a4e137b26e3d2acad71479513549cd1b.squirrel@mail.iti.gr>
To: "Samuel Mart?n" <samuelm@dit.upm.es>
Cc: kvotis@iti.gr, "'Shadi Abou-Zahra'" <shadi@w3.org>, "'ERT WG'" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Dear Samuel

thank you in advance for the comments. We will try to incorporate all of them

regards

kostas





> Dear Kostas, all,
>
> I am providing this as followup of yesterday's conference, regarding the
> use
> of rdf:ID or rdf:about to identify the Assertions. Shadi pointed out the
> rdf:about in an Assertion identifies the assertion object, not the
> TestCase.
> Agreeing with that, then I wondered whether it should be rdf:ID or
> rdf:about. As from RDF/XML Syntax Specification (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-ID-xml-base ):
>
>>> The rdf:ID attribute on a node element (not property element, that has
> another meaning) can be used instead of rdf:about and gives a relative RDF
> URI reference equivalent to # concatenated with the rdf:ID attribute
> value.
> So for example if rdf:ID="name", that would be equivalent to
> rdf:about="#name". rdf:ID provides an additional check since the same name
> can only appear once in the scope of an xml:base value (or document, if
> none
> is given), so is useful for defining a set of distinct, related terms
> relative to the same RDF URI reference.
>
> A post from IBM developerWorks
> (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tiprdfai/index.html)
> sheds
> a nice insight into the choice between both:
>
>>> As for choosing between rdf:ID and rdf:about, you will most likely want
> to use the former if you are describing a resource that doesn't really
> have
> a meaningful location outside the RDF file that describes it. Perhaps it
> is
> a local or convenience record, or even a proxy for an abstraction or
> real-world object (although I recommend you take great care describing
> such
> things in RDF as it leads to all sorts of metaphysical confusion; I have a
> practice of only using RDF to describe records that are meaningful to a
> computer). rdf:about is usually the way to go when you are referring to a
> resource with a globally well-known identifier or location.
>
> So, the differences are:
> 1. Lexical & syntactic: rdf:ID should be specified as an xml ID (ie, with
> no
> leading hash), and acts as a URI reference to the element within the
> document. Meanwhile, rdf:about is a URI: it can be an absolute URI, or a
> relative one (which is resolved against the document base URL, obtained
> from
> either context or xml:base), or a URI reference (that is, with a leading
> hash).
> 2. Semantic: rdf:ID behaves as an xml ID (I grasp this from context, I
> have
> not found the specific reference where rdf:ID is declared as being an xml
> ID), so it must be unique in the context of an RDF/XML document with the
> same xml:base URI. Given that, it seems more reasonable to use rdf:ID to
> specify an assertion, as it would not appear again elsewhere in an EARL
> report. Nonetheless, it is also perfectly correct to use an rdf:about, and
> even to include several Assertion elements with the same rdf:about (it
> would
> just add more statements to the rdf node designed by the Assertion...
> disregarding the result could either be valid EARL or not).
> 3. Pragmatic: in practice, rdf:ID is used when you are trying to provide
> *the* definition for the object (including when you are providing the
> representation from a real-world entity), rdf:about when  you are
> referring
> to an external entity with a well-known URI. That said, this is just a
> matter of convenience.
>
> To sum it up, both are equivalent from and RDF point of view (although
> rdf:ID could seem slightly more appropriate here, just as a practical
> matter). In any case, proper syntax needs to be used ( #name or a full URI
> for rdf:about, name for rdf:ID), and unicity must be preserved in case
> rdf:ID is chosen.
>
> Regards,
>
> Samuel.
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: kvotis@iti.gr [mailto:kvotis@iti.gr]
> Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 17 de octubre de 2012 10:48
> Para: Shadi Abou-Zahra
> CC: ERT WG
> Asunto: Re: ERT WG: Agenda for teleconference on Wednesday 17 October 2012
>
> Dear Shadi, all
>
> please find attached an EARL example from our assessment tool. I have
> tried
> to make it as simple as possible by trying also to fulfill Shadi's
> recommendations. However more details could be provided during our telco
>
> regards
>
> kostas
>
>
>
>
>> ERT WG,
>>
>> The next teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 17 October 2012 at:
>>   * 14:30 to 15:30 Central European Time (CET)
>>   * 09:30 to 10:30 North American Eastern Time (ET)
>>   * 06:30 to 07:30 North American Pacific Time (PT)
>>
>> Please check the World Clock Meeting Planner to find out the precise
>> date for your own time zone:
>>   - <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html>
>>
>> The teleconference information is: (Passcode 3794 - "ERWG")
>>   * +1.617.761.6200
>>   * SIP / VoIP - http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim-SIP
>>
>> We also use IRC to support the meeting: (http://irc.w3.org)
>>   * IRC server: irc.w3.org
>>   * port: 6665
>>   * channel: #er
>>
>>
>> AGENDA:
>>
>> #1. Welcome
>>
>>
>> #2. EARL 1.0 Test Suite
>>   - status check on test suite development
>>   - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/tests/>
>>
>>
>> #3. Accessibility Support Database
>>   - preview on early conceptual draft
>>   - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ACT/asd>
>>
>>
>> #3. Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0
>>   - commenting period ending soon
>>   - <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/>
>>
>>
>> #4. Techniques For Accessibility Evaluation And Repair Tools 1.0
>>   - revival of a historical document
>>   - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-AERT-20000426>
>>
>>
>> #5. Next Meeting
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>    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 Thursday, 18 October 2012 09:45:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 18 October 2012 09:45:11 GMT