Re: A Crack at an EARL Vocabulary

>   earl:testobject (x has test object y, or x is an earl:testobject)
>
> Is this the thing that is being tested?

See the new list [message: EARL Syntax and Vocabulary]. I defined it as
being a property, not an object (as I have incorrectly done above).

>   earl:langtype (x is of langtype y [e.g. x earl:langtype "XHTML"])
>
> :X :conforms http://www.w3.org/TR/

Unless there isn't a strict definition... but most langauges do have
specifications. What would you use as the :conforms for SGML, C++, Java,
and so on?

>   earl:mode (x has a test mode of y)
> Hmm. I f the assertions are made by a tool, by a person, or by a person
> and a tool, then we know what the mode was don't we?

I'm not sure what I mean by mode (actually, I think it's one of Daniels
properties), but I reckon this would be better as a class, so that people
defining new modules can speicify their modes as being a sub property of
this class. i.e. earl:mode becomes earl:Mode.

> (although that might just be because I misused the syntax - I
> have a sneaking supscion we are saying the same thing...

There are some new TimBL additions to N3, (such as ":-") that I need to
look through and work out, so maybe there is a better way of representing
this now?

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .