RE: more discussion on warnings in EARL

 
Hi,

> earl:TestResult rdf:ID="result1"
>   |-earl:validity: earl:pass
>   |- dc:title: Media Type test
>   |- dc:description: text/html is an allowed, but not 
> recommended media type.
> 
> earl:TestResult rdf:ID="resultN"
>   |-earl:validity: earl:pass"
>   |- dc:title: Content Format Support
>   |- dc:description: The content format support is OK

The problem with this representation is that you have the "warning advise" at the atomic test level, not at the overall test outcome (the CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT test)

The Media Type test may produce a warning in this use case (CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT) but may not in any other use case, so I think it's not a good idea to record this warning related information at the atomic test level instead of at the relevant level.

> > And if the media type test is a fail
> 
> Why should it be a fail? The pseudo code specifies that the 
> test should not fail for text/html. I read it as an allowed 
> (earl:pass), but not recommended (warning) media type.

Because it's a test and it may pass or fail and you may want to record whatever result it has.

If the atomic test is: Is the document's Internet media type "text/html"?, then it's supposed you're goint to test whether the Internet media type is text/html or not.

If it's text/html you may want to record the result for this atomic test and if it's not you may also want.

Is the document's Internet media type "text/html"?
Yes --> fail (and it results in a warning at a higher level, but this is just a question of how are the different tescases related)
No --> pass

Regards,
 CI.

------------------------
Carlos Iglesias

CTIC Foundation
Science and Technology Park of Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, Spain

phone: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org

Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 08:41:08 UTC