W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Experiments With Abbreviated EARL As An Authoring Tool

From: Nadia Heninger <nadia@barbwired.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:25:43 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20020623002542.00ae1788@barbwired.com>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

><EARL xmlns="http://infomesh.net/2002/earlxml">
><Assertor name="Bob Bobbington" email="mailto:bob@example.org" >
> <asserts Language="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11" date="2002-06-15" >
>   <fails id="http://www.w3.org/TR/xag#cp2_3"
>       label="2.3 Use XLink and XPointer"
>       note="It was an architectural decision" />
> </asserts>
></Assertor>
></EARL>

Depends on what RDF serializer you use, but several of them seem to like to
serialize properties inside the tags as you've done (which is what takes
out of most of the white space in your example).  That's purely a syntax
thing, which I thought was below the level of EARL.

As for the reification thing, I agree with Nick in that it seems to have
lost its structure.  How is the machine reading that supposed to know what
the relevant bits of your statement are?  Is the date failing or the
Language?  Is the id or the label being failed?  I think some but not all
of the domain/range ambiguity is defined in the EARL schema.

Anyways, I think the real problem with EARL being hard to grok is that the
available references aren't that clear on what's important.  It's verbose,
sure, but that's kind of the tradeoff you make when choosing RDF, and I
think there are enough benefits to using RDF that it's worth it.

On that subject, Wendy, thanks for making a start with the EARL reference
tables on my suggestion.  It wasn't exactly what I meant (I would like to
see the Classes/Properties sections of the draft organized in that order).
I can try to explain better or do a small re-organization to show you at
the meeting if you'd like.

Nadia
Received on Saturday, 22 June 2002 19:25:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:41 GMT