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

Re: A Crack at an EARL Vocabulary

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:19:42 -0000
Message-ID: <012c01c08f91$d6fb57c0$01db93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
>   earl:asserts (x asserts y)
> CMN Use DC:author

I evolved that from Len's e:says. I think it is analagous to earl:comment,
so there is probably no need for it in actual fact.

>   earl:comment (x comments that y)
> CMN how is this different from earl:detail ?

A comment is generic, whereas a detail is specific.

     earl:detail rdfs:subClassOf earl:comment .

>   earl:domain (x has the root domain y)
> CMN What does this mean? (i.e. why is it useful?)

This is another of Len's terms: it may be that you are saying something
about an entire "site" rather than a specific page. This is a
representation of that. Possibly domain is a bad word to use, and my
definition was well off of the mark. Call it a group of pages.

>   earl:person (x is an earl:person [@@ rdf:type discrepancies])
> Why do we need to know that something is a person, unless it is
> something that is either "person or tool"?

Well, you'd want to know what it was tested by? Manual or automatic, human
or tool. earl:person is an object.

     "x" testedBy earl:person .

>   earl:result (x has the result y)
>   earl:status (x has the status y)
> Why is result differnt from status. Use case?

I think that status would be something that is in flux, so if for example a
tool was fixing something as it went along, the EARL that it outputs would
be using status, whereas if something is a final definitive result, then
use result.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 11:37:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:32 UTC