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: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:11:40 -0000
Message-ID: <01f201c090ac$1bed8720$c9d993c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
> I figured that a detail is different from a comment in that it is
> attached to something at a different level, not that it is a different
> type of property?

I think a detail is something that is more specific, like an assertion,
whereas a comment is simply generic - a bit of prose. I think earl:asserts
deprecates earl:detail.

> > Call it a group of pages.
> Isn't there an RDF construct for this already?

I don't think so... unless you mean like a "bag", but what if you don't
want to list all of the URIs? You just want to say "anything uner this
diman/subdirectory"; a bit like a namespace prefix...

> >   earl:result (x has the result y)
> >   earl:status (x has the status y)
>
> Nothing is final and definitive.It's just as far as we got for now. So
> I think we only need one of these.

O.K, in that case I'd go for result, because it is a bit more specific.

> (Anyone tracking what properties we still have?)

Nope :-) I'll make an RDF Schema of all of the properties that we end up
with when the discussions reach some "satisfactory point".

> While I am at it, there is a question of whether it is helpful to have
> the three conformance level properties that I had for ATAG relative
> priorities. They allow us to directly use WCAG as an object, but I
> am not sure how important each of those goals are.

I think it is better to use them as objects rather than something that is
written into a property. Just an opinion, but I think that way you lessen
the amount of properties that use use, and the system is less complex.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2001 21:17:58 GMT

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