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

Re: Questions and proposals related to strawman schema from F2F

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:37:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: Nick Gibbins <nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
cc: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0209271021100.16220-100000@tux.w3.org>

Hmmm. I think that we can collapse the idea of conforming to some requirement
based on conforming to a testcase, and express it as a heuristic result.

so

toolX claims resourceY passes tests T1 and T2, and claims that therefore
resourceY passes criterionA

personX claims resourceY passes test T4 but fails test T3, and therefore
fails criterionA (without testing T1 or T2).

ToolZ claims that since resourceY passes test T1 and T4 (based on claims by
other assertors), resourceY passes criterionB

Then we don't have to worry at what level the tests and criteria are - we can
mix "double-A WCAG conformance" and "content of the alt attribute ends with
the string '.gif'" easily.

This is in fact useful - if we want to test WCAG level A and Section 508 then
we can do it by mixing the claim level-A with a few checkpoints from
elsewhere in WCAG.

Of course it requires that we can express the fact that

<earl:passes>
  <rdf:Bag>
    <rdf:li><some:requirement/></rdf:li>
    <rdf:li><and:someOthers/></rdf:li>
  </rdf:Bag>
</earl:passes>

implies

<earl:passes>
  <new:requirement/>
</earl:passes>

cwm can do this with log:implies (I forget what the log namespace refers to
though) - we just need to be able to express it with the right syntax. Is it
possible to use RDF Schema -

<rdf:about>
  <rdf:Bag>
    <rdf:li><some:requirement/></rdf:li>
    <rdf:li><and:someOthers/></rdf:li>
  </rdf:Bag>
  <rdfs:subClass new:requirement/>
</rdf:about>

or am I breaking something here? (And if it is possible does that introduce a
requirement to understand RDF schema for EARL processing that wassn't already
there?)

We will also, I suspect, want to identify the things that were included to
draw the conclusion. While this is not strictly necessary, being able to
check them is helpful. It means that if one of those conditions changes we
can retest the computed results without needing to retest all the things that
led to the inference.

(my brain isn't sufficiently wired into RDF syntax today to write the
examples - can anyone help?)

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI
 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia  fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 10:38:23 GMT

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