- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:41:40 +0100
- To: drooks@segala.com
- Cc: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>, public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi David, drooks@segala.com wrote: > The Evidence and Methodology classes have got me scratching my head. [SNIP] > Perhaps it would help if someone could provide a practical implementation to > demonstrate how they envision these classes to be used... So far, there has been no discussion or proposal for a Methodology class. CarlosI raised it as an important aspect to consider when designing EARL and I agree with that. However, I am not sure we will end up with such a class. As to the Evidence, it was proposed by Charles in the past but he has an action item to provide the RDF code for more discussion. Anyway, maybe the name "evidence" is misleading but you seem to have gotten the idea correctly in your previous post. Basically, it is a reference to other (sub-)assertions. It is especially useful for heuristic results. For example, based on assertions X, Y, and Z, tool T claims the assertion M. In this scenario, there isn't a single test associated with M but the result is based on a series of tests that were carried out during X, Y, and Z. Maybe this use case may become somewhat redundant by introducing both the test case and test requirement properties? Regards, Shadi -- Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | WAI-TIES Project, http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, Sophia-Antipolis - France | Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 15:41:45 UTC