- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 17:43:00 +0200
- To: "public-wai-ert@w3.org" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi folks,
some comments (sorry to be so close to the call)
Properties of assertions:
[[[
<rdf:Property rdf:about="&rdf;ID" rdfs:label="ID">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&earl;Assertion"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Literal"/>
</rdf:Property>
]]]
This is a bad idea - it is an attempt to define the rdf ID property. Which
we absolutely shouldn't do. If we want to require an ID on an assertion
(and I think this isn't necessarily a good idea either) this isn't the way
to do it...
[[[
<rdf:Property rdf:about="&earl;location" rdfs:label="location">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;Container"/>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&earl;Assertion"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&earl;Location"/>
</rdf:Property>
]]]
Makes good sense to me. But I think the URIs of the property ....#location
and the class ...#Location should be more obviously different even for
people who are editing code and therefore should know what they are doing.
[[[
<rdf:Property rdf:about="&earl;evidence" rdfs:label="evidence">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;Container"/>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&earl;Assertion"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&earl;Assertion"/>
</rdf:Property>
]]]
I think the evidence property is a good idea. I don't think the range
should be an Assertion - mostly because I would like to also be able to
point to a rule that describes how several results relate to each other,
and this is likely to be an OWL Restriction that is not, in itself, an
EARL assertion. (Where an assertion is a result declaration - we have
talked about minimal assertions having an assertor, date, subject,
testcase... and this would make that pretty difficult).
Properties of Assertor...
I would drop all of the ones that relate to people, in favor of using
foaf:Person (there are lots of unstable bits of foaf, but the ones we want
are among the most-used RDF properties in existence and I think they are
fairly reliable...). For tools, I suggeest that we start with dc:title,
and maybe some other DC stuff, but that we look for an existing
description vocabulary rather than making up our own. Somethign like
Bugzilla might be a good place to look.
Properties of TestSubject...
again, we should not define Dublin Core properties here. We should, in the
spec, show how they are used in EARL (ditto for the FOAF stuff above). I
would like to discuss the use of earl:reprOf, because I think it should
have a range of WebContent, and that should have the properties like GET
request headers, returned headers, body and so on. I also think we should
talk to the Annotea folks directly and ask what they think of the idea of
re-using their terms (a:body seems a shoe-in. Their HTTP vocabulary is
undocumented, but we might be able to get them to document it instead of
doing it ourselves. Failing which, there is probably another one out there
that is well documented.
Properties of TestResult...
I am not sure that a message is really a description of a resource, which
is what DC description means. Apart from the fact that it is a very
abstract resource, sometimes the message is a description and sometimes
not. I am also not clear about the relationship between confidence and
precision - I think that we still need to discuss that further. My
suggestion is actually to use a datatype to deal with refinements on
confidence, since it is such an unknown quantity anyway. Then we can use
whatever BPWG figures out makes sense as a way of relating between
datatypes.
Properties of Location...
I would not rush to add these without figuring out what we want. Maybe
line number because it is really common, but it needs to be well defined
(count from 0 or 1? what about blank lines? CR/CRLF/LF all count the same?
etc).
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile chaals@opera.com
se habla español - nous parlons français
Here's one we prepared earlier: http://www.opera.com/download
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 15:43:19 UTC