RE: [Fwd: browsable test results]

hi dan,

after checking briefly, the main difference is that your model includes
the duration as a value for the test result while in EARL only the
pass/fail predicate describes the assertion. further values can be
included in the assertion as well but are not predefined so that anyone
could include context specific measurements such as duration or severity
for example.

furthermore, in EARL the assertor that conducts the tests is included so
that a single report of test results could be a collection of tests
conducted by different sources. this is a neat feature if there are
specialized tools that carry out only specific tests. we are currently
working on an EARL wrapper tool that can actually automatically combine
the results from different sources into a single report.

i really think we should work on merging both efforts...

regards,
  shadi


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: vendredi 12 septembre 2003 15:43
> Subject: [Fwd: browsable test results]
> 
> 
> The WebOnt WG is in CR, and we're using RDF
> to manage our test results.
>   http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out
> 
>   and http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/resultsOntology
> 
> Attached find an example of some of the benefits.
> 
> I'm only vaguely familar with EARL; I'd appreciate review
> from somebody who knows more about it. How much of the
> wheel have we reinvented?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
>

Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 10:36:23 UTC