feedback on data format for WCAG-EM reports

Hi Wilco,

Ref: https://github.com/w3c/wcag-em-report-tool/blob/master/dataformat.md

Please find below some feedback on the suggested data format for WCAG-EM 
reports (based on EARL). Other participants of ERT WG might have 
additional thoughts.

# webPage
  - EARL does not provide such a class -- might be good to add here;
  - also needs to consider the notion of "web page states";

# reliedUponTechnology
  - maybe this should be a class too? with dct:title and a URI to any 
publicly available specification for the technology;

# dct:conformsTo
  - actually WCAG-EM results do not include conformance claims;

# commisioner
  - typo -- think you mean commissioner;

# additionalRequirement
  - could also be a list; maybe rename to additionalEvalRequirement?

# dct:date
  - what does this date stand for? is it different from dct:date in 
earl:TestResult class (provided for each assertion individually)?

# Specifics
  - what is that?

# dct:abstract
  - I like reusing existing terms but I need to re-read the definition;

# commonPages
  - think this should be a list of webPage;

# essentialFunctionality
  - also could be a list;

# pageTypeVariaty
  - typo -- think you mean pageTypeVariety;

# otherRelevantPages
  - think this should be a list of webPage;

# structuredSample and randomSample
  - maybe create an abstract "webPageSample" class for the two?

# Misc other comments
  - maybe also need an overall "wcagem:Report" class?
  - maybe package conformanceTarget, commissioner, and 
additionalRequirement into an abstract wcagem:EvaluationScope class?


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 Wednesday, 25 June 2014 12:26:09 UTC