W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: quick question on I18N

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:48:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4A2654FC.8090105@w3.org>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: www-international@w3.org
Hi Martin,

Great to hear from you! You are right, sorry for shooting this over so 
clumsily. Here is some background:

Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) is an RDF vocabulary to describe 
test results. In other words, to describe output from quality assurance 
testing, such as for Web accessibility or similar type of tests.

Basically an EARL assertion describes the following:
- who (or what) carried out the test (the "Assertor")
- on what the test was carried out (the "Subject")
- what test was actually carried out (the "Test")
- what were the outcomes of this test (the "Result")

The reason for our I18N requirement, is to ensure that any descriptions 
(especially textual descriptions) can serve different languages and 
cultures. However, for the most part we use the Dublin Core "title" and 
"description" (and sometimes "date") elements for the most part. In one 
or two situations we have used the RDF "Literal" datatype directly. We 
should therefore be probably quite safe but we want to confirm.

So, our questions to the I18N group are:

#1. Do you feel that we need to consider other aspects, rather than just 
rely on "the internationalization infrastructure included in [RDF]"?

#2. Would somebody volunteer to glance over the EARL 1.0 Schema spec [1] 
with an "I18N-eye", and let us know if there are issues of concern?

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/>

Thanks,
   Shadi


Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Hello Shadi,
> 
> For you, these questions look like quick questions because you are very 
> familiar with EARL. However, nobody here is familiar, so it's not easy 
> at all for us to answer them.
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> On 2009/06/02 20:22, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> Dear I18N group,
>>
>> ERT WG is hopefully putting together a Last Call for EARL 1.0 and were
>> going through the Requirements [1] again. We have this requirement:
>>
>> * D07 - EARL 1.0 will provide vocabularies that support the
>> internationalization infrastructure included in [RDF].
>>
>> We also have a more generic requirement to support the QA framework:
>>
>> * D02 - The specifications and technical notes that comprise EARL 1.0
>> will be developed and published according to the [W3C QA Framework].
>>
>>
>> Question: is there anything more we need to do to ensure that we are
>> requiring ourselves to support I18N to the highest extent possible?
>> Basically we see no issues with any of the vocabularies that we are
>> defining by EARL, so we should get everything for free through RDF.
>> However, we do want to have a requirement that forces us to do the
>> adequate level of due-diligence checking.
>>
>> [1] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Requirements-20090526>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shadi
>>
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 10:48:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 June 2009 10:48:52 GMT