W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > April 2004

Re: EARL Testcase

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:31:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Cc: WAI ER IG List <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, David Weinkauf <d.weinkauf@utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0404151922580.32709@homer.w3.org>

That would work (so long as you promise to put it in quotes so it is valid
:-)

Alternatively (or as well) we could ask the WCAG group to provide some
identifiers which we could then use in techniques notes too. I recall trying
to do this once, but I think it might have been for Authoring Tools - there
should be something in there that makes sense as an identifier. But I can't
guarantee it... (And checking, it turns out to be a figment of my imagination
:-(

Until I could use OWL to explain the realtionship in a machine-readable way I
haven't really bothered including conformance level claims in the work I have
done (since they were not terribly relevant to the aspects that were
important to what I was doing).

Cheers

Chaals

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Chris Ridpath wrote:

>Thanks for the helpful suggestions.
>
>I think it may be simpler though if we could all agree on a URI that
>represents the guideline. You've taken this approach with checkpoints and it
>works fine. Example from Sidar's HERA:
>
><earl:testcase
>rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-text-equivalent" />
>
>How about using
><earl:testcase rdf:resource=http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#a/>
>to represent the WCAG 1.0 level 'A' guideline?
>
>Chris
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
>To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
>Cc: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
>Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 11:11 AM
>Subject: Re: EARL Testcase
>
>
>> Well, one thing to do is to try and agree on URIs to use. For example, I
>have
>> used the URIs of the checkpoints to cover claiming each individual
>> checkpoint, and that is what WAINu, HERA, and Axforms all do.
>>
>> If you want to declare that 2 URIs mean the same thing you should use an
>OWL
>> property:
>>
>> foo:waigl owl:sameAs bar:wcag1
>>
>> which relies on tools that understand a bit of OWL to make it work. If you
>> only want to require tools to understand RDF Schema you can go with
>>
>> foo:waigl rdfs:subClass bar:wcag1 AND bar:wcag1 rdfs:subClass foo:waigl
>>
>> So long as the information is available (Hera reports actually link to a
>> bunch of stuff. Axforms reports include a lot of information in the
>report)
>> whether a particular tool understands it or not is a problem for the tool
>> developer.
>>
>> But having this kind of OWL stuff is probably useful. I recently wrote a
>> piece for the WCAG group [1] explaining how to use some other OWL stuff to
>> describe the fact that meeting some checkpoint was the same as meeting
>some
>> set of sub-points - for example WCAG double-A is the set of WCAG level A
>plus
>> all priority 2 checkpoints, but it applies equally for the more detailed
>work
>> people are doing.
>>
>> The alternative is to make up special EARL magic which people would still
>> have to implement - it seems to me easier to sell the idea that
>implementing
>> this stuff is in fact doing stock-standard work for your basic parser, and
>> you can expect to find the right piece of basic parser off the shelf if
>you
>> look, rather than some once-off code useful only in EARL tools.
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0025
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >EARL can be used to state that a particular resource passes or fails a
>> >particular test. The test can be something subjective like the WAI
>> >guidelines. We can use the earl:testcase element to make these sort of
>> >statements.
>> >
>> >Our checker program makes a statement that a particular page passes or
>fails
>> >the WAI guidelines and uses our URI as the definition of the WAI
>guidelines.
>> >Example:
>> >
>> ><earl:testcase
>> >rdf:resource="http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/wcag-1-0-aa.xml" />
>> >
>> >Other programs will generate a similar statement and will reference their
>> >definition of the WAI guidelines. Example:
>> >
>> ><earl:testcase rdf:resource="http://accessibility.tester/WCAG-AA.html" />
>> >
>> >How can a program collect the EARL results from various checking tools
>and
>> >tell if the page passes/fails the WAI guidelines?
>> >
>> >To put it another way - How can you tell that both programs are testing
>the
>> >same guidelines? (Perhaps using the earl:testcase rdf:about attribute?)
>> >
>> >Chris
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134
>136
>> SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): +33 4 92 38
>78 22
>>  Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
>>  W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
>

Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22
 Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 19:31:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:42 GMT