W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > May 2001

SV: Using RDF to describe DOM tests

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:29:00 +0200
Message-ID: <9F67DC27F4CCD311ABA600508B6A66A44A65F8@VXOIMP1>
To: "'Sean B. Palmer'" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, www-dom-ts@w3.org
Thanks, Sean

It will be discussed during tomorrow's DOM TS telcon and I'll report back to
you as soon as possible. 

Could you please indicate what the vocabulary would have to look like on
order to make the assertions that Dublin core doens't allow? What would we
need to think of?

We are currently adding granularity to our DOM TS ML, so it would be good to
know.

Again, thanks

/Dimitris

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Sean B. Palmer [mailto:sean@mysterylights.com]
Skickat: den 28 maj 2001 14:16
Till: Arnold, Curt
Kopia: Dimitris Dimitriadis; w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org; www-dom-ts@w3.org
Ämne: Re: Using RDF to describe DOM tests


> Could someone throw off a quick sample of what an RDF
> in XML using EARL (and Dublin Core or other appropriate
> Ontology) for my little sample DOM test suite [...]

Done, and attached as <<DOM-TS.rdf>>. Also find attached the Notation3
version as <<DOM-TS.n3>>. What I did was take a snippet of Curt's
Dublin Core version, and converted it as best I can into EARL. Note
that the Dublin Core stuff was intended as a very general
*vocabulary*, but not as a model for expressing evaluations, so
although it is O.K. to use Dublin Core terms in EARL, you can't use
them to express things such as "this is a test suite" or "somebody
asserts X", or "this fails/passes this", which is what EARL allows you
to do (i.e. EARL provides an evaluation mechanism, and a few terms,
which can be supplemented by Dublin Core , RDFS, FOAF, or whatever).

> How would you represent that a test was accepted (or
> rejected) by a specific authority (such as the DOM WG)?

In this case, I've put "Arnold Curt says that this test suite passes
this ID in the DOM specification". You could change that to say that
"the DOM WG says that (x)" or even "Arnold Curt says that (x), and the
DOM WG say that (x)" or "the DOM WG say that (y), developed by Arnold
Curt, (x)", or anything else along those lines.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 28 May 2001 08:29:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:02 UTC