Re: Agenda for 14 May 2001 ERT WG meeting

Sean,

i think we ought to track EARL open issues.  Suppose we can make Section 6 
of http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/ "open issues" or should it be a separate 
document?

--w


At 06:38 PM 5/11/01 , Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> > 5. Errata for EARL.  Sean, do you want to discuss the
> > issues you've raised or were you just documenting them
> > (as you said near the end of your message)? [...]
>
>Well, I found quite a few more, and am currently working on a 0.95
>version of the schema. Many of them are actually just improvements to
>the language, rather than actual errors. Summary (thus far):-
>
>1) Domain and range semantics too strict for some properties, use DAML
>restrictions instead.
>2) Trying to work on the contexts vs. refiication stuff. Need to
>declare more stuff as being a sub class of rdf Statement, but in N3 we
>use n3:Statement, so I'm not 100% certain on the situation. Minor
>point.
>3) Much work done on Unique and Non Unique Test Subjects. Some mess
>created, but much progress.
>4) Agreed (as has Aaron) that p/o in earl:Assertion could and most
>probably should be swapped around.
>5) Found that DAML provides much flexibility and semantics that the
>schema requires, and yet aren't present in RDF Schema. I'm making more
>use of DAML, such as oneOf to provide easy ennumerations. Means we use
>less prose, and more machine processable semantics, but hangs by a
>thread.
>6) Might need mappings from 0.9 => 0.95.
>7) Not sure about dc:date in EARL - could but a DAML restriction on
>it, because I think we should look carefully into the actual object of
>dc:date... what datatype? Messy, as far as namespaces for datatypes
>are concerned :-)
>8) Now uses a novel way to define evaluations and assertions - as an
>intersection of some restrictions on the reification properties (plus
>it sounds good as well). Interesting way of going about it, but needs
>checking over. Here's a snippet:-
>
>    earl:Evaluation rdfs:subClassOf
>        [ daml:intersectionOf
>              ([ daml:onProperty rdf:subject;
>                  daml:toClass earl:Assertor ]
>               [ daml:onProperty rdf:predicate;
>                  daml:toClass earl:AssertsProperty ]
>               [ daml:onProperty rdf:object;
>                 daml:toClass earl:Assertion ]) ] .
>
>There's probably some more errata and points that I've missed as well.
>
>I'd like to discuss some of the issues - especially as EARL is
>(hopefully) moving away from the theoretical and towards the
>practical. I've been thinking about actual situations, and they seem
>to work well because the RDF model is so clean - and repurposable.
>
>One additional point is, "how can we point to the XML version of a BNF
>parse tree [1] using a URI?". It's not too much of a problem at this
>stage, but it will become so when we want to start pointing at very
>specific bits of code...
>
>For example, we could do something like:-
>
>    :x :content <http://mycss.org/css.css>;
>       a earl:XMLBNFThingy;
>       :xpointer "(rule[8])" .
>
>But that probably rates as a "9/10" on the hack scale. Still, I'm
>really impressed by the potential that EARL carries with it; word is
>slowly spreading...
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-er-ig/2000Dec/0043
>
>--
>Kindest Regards,
>Sean B. Palmer
>@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
>:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
tel: +1 206.706.5263
/--

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2001 15:32:39 UTC