Re: EARL Conformance Statement

Shadi,

> earl:reprOf has been dropped for http:Request and http:Response pairs.
>See thread and work by Johannes on this.
> We will be publishing this as a Working Group Note then referencing it in 
> EARL.
>
OK. I had a look through the mailing list but couldn't find out how the 
discussion ended. Is there a draft version of the note or a message that 
shows how to do this?

> earl:Software (capital "S")
>
Pesky XML!

>Also, I prefer to use rdf:id rather than rdf:about...
>
(Is the "ID" uppercase?) Like:
<earl:software rdf:ID="assertorTool">

And then is it referenced like?:
<earl:assertedBy rdf:resource="#assertorTool" />

> earl:subject (lower case "s")
>
Very pesky XML!

> Also, we dropped the "high", "medium", and "low" values for 
> earl:confidence; you need to define your own here.
>
OK, I'll remove them from the example.

> Another final comment, RDF will not stop you from adding dc:date to an 
> earl:Assertion...
>
I didn't notice before that our assertion doesn't require a date. It is 
required on the test subject and I think it should be required by the 
assertion too. Was there a good reason for dropping the date on the 
assertion?

Once I get the info on the http:request/response I can finish the example.

I seem to remember that Charles was working on a conformance statement too. 
Charles - is this close to what you had in mind?

Cheers,
Chris

Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 16:45:22 UTC