RE: Explicit vs Implicit URIs (aka "blanket statements or not")

 

Hi everybody,
 
> BACKGROUND:
> There are two related but yet quite different use cases for 
> implicit URI (e.g. "example.org" means all resources 
> available under this domain name):
> 1. to facilitate more compact EARL reports 2. to enable 
> blanket statements such as conformance claims
>
> ISSUE:
> It turns out that such implicit URIs also bring about 
> ambiguity. 


Don't forget we already have ambiguity in EARL: e.g. content negotiation properties which are optional

> For example, if a new page is added to 
> "example.org" after an assertion was made, is then the 
> assertion result still valid? 

It depends.

Similarly, if we have a complete EARL report (without implicit URIs) and the content of a document has changed, is then the assertion result still valid?

It depends.

Then, basically what we need is a 'flag' which helps us to know whether something has changed or not (as discussed previously in the group). Then, knowing that something has changed we could decide what to do.


> Similarly, for blanket 
> statements such as conformance claims, it is unlikely that 
> all pages under "example.org" have been tested but probably 
> only a sampling. It is therefore rather imprecise (but still 
> useful) to give a blanket statement without further 
> description of what has been tested, and which methodology 
> has been used to test.


Maybe we have a good use case for the earl:methodology/earl:evidence after all: EARL blanket statements pointing to EARL detailed reports?
 
 
> PROPOSAL:
> The currently suggested proposal is that EARL should only 
> focus on recording actual test results (ie. no implicit URIs, 
> only explicit ones). In some cases, RDF features such as 
> collections may be suitable to reduce verbosity (still, every 
> tested URI will need to be recorded at least once per 
> report). As to blanket conformance claims, other vocabularies 
> (preferably RDF-CL) should be able to provide the required 
> functionality of expressing these, and pointing back to the 
> EARL report for more detail on what has been tested.


In this case, why this approach is better than the use of EARL for blanket conformance claims and pointing back to a more detailed EARL report? (let's call it evidence or methodology if you want ;o)


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 Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:54:52 UTC