LK: I would like to create nice modular design for EARL. Not hacked up.
HB: Could this be XML module that gets attached to XML apps?
LK: Like XML but not RDF structure?
HB: No strong opinion.
LK: RDF can do logical operations but has more of learning curve.
LK: EARL could be oriented towards checkpoints (AERT) or could be lower level. Example: Checkpoint 5.3 is... Or attribute 'X' is... What is best?
[lower level EARL now called 'atomic' EARL]
HB: Checkpoints change so EARL must specify checkpoint level.
WC: ATAG checkpoints are used too.
WL: Are we looking at docs or programs?
WC: At FTF we decided to look at docs. Can claim conformance of tools to ATAG.
HB: I noticed that about 1/3 web sites say how they were created. Large amount were PowerPoint.
LK: If we look at authoring tools, they can say checkpoint 'x' pass/fail. Does it make sense for them to look at attributes? AU [reads 1.1] "authoring tool must be able to create accessible markup".
LK: What aspects of authoring can be automatically tested?
HB: Can check if tool can create something like longdesc.
LK: Judging authoring tool requires human. Generates list of RDF like "Len says pass/fail on checkpoint 1.1".
HB: Does this happen once per authoring tool or once per person?
LK: Once we can rate docs then we allow different tools to create docs and compare results.
HB: You create docs with specific tests in mind.
WC: Charles and Jan (from AU) have been working on testing tools. We were going to focus on docs.
HB: Are we integrated into Anotaya[sp?] (feature of Amaya)
WC: Some work but not yet.
LK: How attached to doc?
WC: Can point to whole doc or point in doc. Uses x-path and RDF.
HB: It's separate from document.
LK: Does it contain freeform text or what?
WC: Can contain any RDF statement or text. Anotaya stored in public server.
LK: Storage is not like EARL but use of x-path and RDF is like EARL.
[Review of Anotaya site at: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotation-ns]
LK: We want EARL to do computations on statements in Anotaya. Is Anotaya anything more than the yellow stickies?
WC: Just yellow stickies for now. Will you look at schema for use by us?
LK: Will start a thread. Will talk with Amaya group with regard to our use.
WC: This is like semantic stuff. We should contact Anotaya and invite to our FTF.
LK: Back to checkpoints vs. atomic checking. If WCAG was machine readable then could be helpful.
CR: Could we consider WCAG to cover all accessibility problems? EG. 508 has some checks outside of WCAG.
WC: SSB has checks outside WCAG as well.
LK: Machine check to convert to WCAG. Which group would create rule set?
WC: Ideally WCAG would have default ruleset. Would be great if ER could create rule set. Would be test to see if WCAG is specific enough.
LK: WCAG is normative. Would ruleset be informative?
WC: Both might be normative.
LK: Would be good if WCAG is machine readable.
WC: Yes. ER could create rules to check.
LK: Our example takes RDF and converts to human readable.
WC: Could we use our RDF and Anotaya, I wonder?
LK: Question for resolution (one of three options): 1) Forget about 'atomic' expressions. 2) Explore further. 3) Go for 'atomic'.
WC: Good to explore. Need action item that details what to explore. Issue with Jaws - alt/title only reads title. Look at modular rule sets and Jaws.
LK: Clarification of alt/title. Like 'hello world' exercise. Resolved to create at least 2 statements that do not deal with checkpoints and then convert to checkpoints. (Wendy's alt/title is one and Len will create another one.)
WC: Reading order is interesting too.
LK: Also tied to stylesheets [doc readable with stylesheets turned off]. Like with tool that uses stylesheets for layout.
WC: I would like to express in English statement (natural lang, pseudo code etc.) then later in RDF.
LK: Yes.
LK: We've been asked to provide monthly goals for group. Any suggestions?
WC: More work on rulesets for EARL.
CR: Open issues resolved.
WC: Many open issues are in WCAG 1 and may be resolved or moot with WCAG 2.
WC: Should we coordinate with WCAG 2 as we progress?
ALL: yes. Would be great if WCAG2 came with ruleset.
WC: WCAG2 is at least a year away so there is time for ruleset.
HB: Will WCAG2 align with 508?
WL: We are looking at 508 but not incorporating.
WC: We want to make WCAG clear enough that others are not needed. We like some aspects of 508.
CR: Get others to agree and create plan?
WC: We need to get EARL into existing tools (faroff goal) as part of implementation plan. What is immediate goal?
LK: Our goal: By end of March we will get 2 or more examples of atomic EARL. We will answer questions: What is capability of logic machines for N3 and RDF.
LK: Another goal: Answers to our fact finding. Anotaya - can it go beyond stickey notes? What can RDF machines do for us?
WC: Goal is: What tools will we need?
LK: Pointer to N3: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer
March 5.
Minutes by C.R.