W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2001

Re: Larger EARL report: issues arise

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:53:15 -0000
Message-ID: <008f01c08f0f$21e04080$0bcf7ad5@z5n9x1>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
> That's what I'm trying to express... two contexts: in one context,
> the one :hu1 expresses, in which e:altStatus is fail, in the other,
> which :hu2 expresses, in which it's pass.

Yes, that seems fine. I get a bit messed up with Seth Russell's semEnglish
language, which he evolved from Notation3. There, you can use [] for almost
anything, depending upon the amount of elements inside. For example, one
element is a URI, two is (p,o), three is a triple, and so on.

> So in addition to getting a good vocabulary, we've got to thing
> about what the terms have as objects.

Very true, and that's more of the tool thing "what does this triple point
to?". It may be a site, or it may be another triple, or whatever. The
vocabulary is the bit that will be defined in the main language, it is the
bit that is "EARL". The rest is simply RDF M&S, so there are already many
ways to apply it, and lots of processors. This is one of the great
advanages of using RDF.

It may be that people will be needing to create their own EARL-type
vocabularies: e.g. one for repair tools, one for editors, and so on. I
think in that way it should be a modular specification... CSS and XHTML
have both benefited enourmously from modularization. It's something to
consider when we develop EARL for real.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2001 20:01:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:38 GMT