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

EARL Issues - Again

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 02:37:51 +0100
Message-ID: <097a01c0e25f$d1573de0$a2ed93c3@z5n9x1>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
There are 6/7 big issues that need addressing before we can publish
the 0.95 schema:-

1) Granularity of results. Add a PE type thing? Some of the blurb on
that from a previous email:-
At the moment, I'm moving towards explicitly enumerating certain
classes, using "oneOf" in DAML. However, this wouldn't allow for
extensibility afterwards, so we could say that the main class is
comprised of a disjoint union of two sub classes, one of which is made
by ERT - an explicit enumeration, and the other is for public use to
add terms that they want a certain processor to use.
Or, even easier would be to just let people use the main class that we
have in our namespace. It's the obvious way. Still, do we have enough
granularity in the current list of classes to satisfy 90% of people?
Does it matter? There has already been a little work done on this, but
I don't think it was resolved.

2) Are there any other sub classes of earl:Assertor that we need to
note? At the moment, we only have earl:Person (and I added
earl:Operator as a sub class of that). Maybe we could allow earl:Tool
here as well (or possibly earl:AssertingTool). Do we have to enumerate
this? Could we use a similar method to in 1)?

3) Do we need to include other properties that humans could have other
than email address and so on? Could we import some of the terms used
in P3P?

4) More prose for the terms.
At the moment, just looking through the schema, it is next to
impossible to work out what each of the terms is for, just by name. We
need to agree on the prose and best practices for the terms - it's not
something one of us can just hack up.
We can all pitch in on this one. I'll draft an informal HTML
document - an EARL 0.95 vocabulary list.

5) Explicitly state all ranges for vocabulary properties? Also, where
do we put any/all of the equivalence information? This is something
that needs resolving.

Important, but doesn't need to be resolved:-

What namespace for the simple datatype for earl:Date?
SBP: No answer to this yet. Could a W3T member sort this one out?

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 21:35:25 UTC

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