- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:22:32 +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/ Specifically on ยง 3.1. assertedBy Property: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-EARL10-Schema-20110510/#assertedBy The domain of this property is earl:Assertion. Why is the domain not, instead, the whole EARL report perhaps in class union with earl:Assertion? Note that to be consistent with Bug 007 this would have to be an OWL restriction or something of that kind rather than a domain constraint. Having the domain of earl:assertedBy be earl:Assertion, coupled with the requirement on the cardinality of the property here: 4.1 Conforming EARL 1.0 Reports http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-EARL10-Guide-20110510/#EARL10Reports Means that each earl:Assertion has to have an earl:assertedBy. Even if it were optional, if the author wanted to associate a single Assertor with each Assertion, they would have to do it with each individual Assertion. This is more sensible for that case: <> earl:assertedBy [ foaf:name "Bob B. Bobbington" ]. This would imply that for every instance, ?x, of Assertion within the document: ?x earl:assertedBy [ foaf:name "Bob B. Bobbington" ]. Compare also the log:semantics property in the SWAP tools. http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/ http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log (RDF) Note that according to Bug 013, earl:assertedBy should be renamed to earl:assertor. -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2011 16:22:59 UTC