W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2002

[Readable version] Thoughts on 1.0 (better-thought out, better-formatted)

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:29:17 -0000
Message-ID: <00b101c1cc47$0d028da0$35570150@localhost>
To: <www-archive@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
To: "Nadia Heninger" <nadia@barbwired.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on 1.0 (better-thought out,
better-formatted)

Hey there,

> 1. Replace the WebContent, Tool, and UserAgent
> subclasses of TestSubject with a single TestSubject
> class that can have some kind of type (earl:isa?
> something else?) property that is one of those three.

Impressive suggestion! As you noticed, there are various pros and
cons to this approach, which BTW can be made compatible with the
current approach. Chaals already raised the main issue (which may
or may not be a problem), which is that this method leaves less
room for extensibility and dual typing - depending upon how it's
arranged.

There are a few options and paths for giving the type of the test
subject - for example, how many earl:isa (or earl:subjectType,
perhaps) properties is one allowed to have on a TestSubject?
Should the types be explicitly enumerated, or extensible?

The play off (similar to niq's Implementation vs. Stabilization
conundrum) is between making things simple and regular for
lower-end tools, but powerful and flexible enough for later
high-end tools.

> 2. Transform the essential element of an EARL document
> from an Assertor to an Assertion, and make the Assertion
> a four-part item that includes the Assertor.

Hmm... I think someone proposed this before, although I can't
find a reference, so I might be mistaken. It makes the XML RDF a
bit verbose if you have an anonymous assertor asserting lots of
assertions (that could go into the twelve days of EARL), but I
think that the choice is arbitrary either way. In fact, one can
just use [ daml:inverseOf earl:asserts ] in any case, so both
methods are acceptable from a coherent data POV.

Choices, choices...

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> .
:Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 12:30:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:16 GMT