W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: experience generating EARL for GRDDL test results

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:49:17 -0600
Message-Id: <7021d3f05f1c8dba3fdae9394e4b3c54@w3.org>
Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org, Sean Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>, public-wai-ert@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org, public-sparql-dev@w3.org
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>

On Jan 15, 2007, at 5:38 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> Dan Connolly wrote:
>>       [      a :Assertion;
>>              :assertedBy dan:dwc;
>>              :test tes:sq1a;
>>              :testResult  [
>>                  a :TestResult;
>>                  :validity :pass ];
>>              :testSubject p:grddl_py ].
>> This is based on a clue I got from Sean
>>   http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2006-11-10.html#T15-13-57
>> and not from a careful reading of the EARL docs. Let me
>> know if it's not right.
> A couple of issues:
> * testResult: the property term is "result".
> * testSubject: the property term is "subject".

OK, I fixed those in v 1.6 2007/01/15 18:45:41

> * assertedBy: make sure that dan:dwc is a foaf:Agent (such as 
> foaf:Person) or an earl:Software as described in [1].

Hmm... I believe I am a foaf:Agent; does EARL require that I say so 
explicitly? In the
same file? That's odd. I already say I'm a person elsewhere.

The spec seems to say that the range of assertedBy is earl:Assertor; 
isn't that enough?
Hmm... Asserter has "allowable types" SingleAssertor and 
CompoundAssertor. The prose
seems to say that every Asserter is either a SingleAssertor or a 
you can say that using OWL:

  earl:Asserter owl:unionOf (earl:SingleAssertor earl:CompoundAssertor).

In fact, those tables in Appendix B are pretty nice; they're just a few 
lines of XSLT
away from being nice RDFS/OWL schemas. Why are they non-normative?

When you say "required properties," do you mean owl:minCardinality 1?

Looking at [1], I see
   "An Assertion must have at least the following properties"
that's odd too.

I think it's a misuse of RFC2119 to say things like "2 + 2 MUST be 4" 
or "every attribute value in an XML document MUST be quoted." Better to 
just say "2 + 2 is 4" and "every attribute value in an XML document is 
  -- "must is for agents", Dan Connolly, Jan 2001

> [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-EARL10-Schema-20060927/#assertor>

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 18:49:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:58 UTC