- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 00:01:56 +0100
- To: public-earl10-comments@w3.org
This is feedback on a Last Call Working Draft: Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema W3C Working Draft 10 May 2011 http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-EARL10-Schema-20110510/ Consider the following scenario. Someone writing a test report needs to link to a particular piece of software. They don't care whether they link to documentation of that software, or an RDF vocabulary term for the software itself. This is kind of the difference, as in the famous TAG finding on httpRange-14, between getting a 200 and a 303 response. In EARL, we used to have a property for doing this. It was called earl:tool. The idea was that the range of this property was dynamic. If the object were documentation of a particular piece of software, then the software itself should be understood as associated with the present EARL assertion. If the object were a term representing the piece of software itself, it would similarly be understand as associated with the present EARL association. What was really clever about this property is that it was developed before the TAG finding. In fact it was a way to sidestep the TAG issue altogether. But it would still have utility now, because I don't think developers really care too much about the peccadilloes of RDF, they just want to do the natural thing. The earl:tool property was natural, but there is nothing like it in EARL at the moment. Something like it should be added back. This is more of an RFE than a bug. It is of low priority, but should be considered as something which may enrich the language. -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 23:02:24 UTC