RE: Last Call Review: EARL 1.0 Schema Last Call Working Draft

Hi,

 

Here are my brief remarks/observations on EARL schema:

 

1.    The given schema had some problems according to RDFS or OWL syntax. I
tried to adapt the schema for OWL-Full, copy of which is attached with this
mail. I think it might be better to strictly follow some specific OWL
variant for the EARL schema, i.e., RDFS or OWL-Lite/DL/Full. According to my
experience, initially schema in RDFS is best which after a period of
maturity should lead to OWL-DL.

2.    The semantics of Test Mode are not well represented in the schema. I
am not sure how beneficial would it be at his stage. But later it could be
useful.

3.    WCAG guidelines (initially some of those) could be represented
semantically under Test Case. This would help in formally connecting the
accessibility guidelines, software and the test results with each other. 

4.    Since EARL is also supposed to provide reusable vocabulary for generic
quality assurance and validation purposes. I was thinking that the results
data gathered (in earl:Test Result) could be enriched and represented
formally so as to be usable on the fly for software adaptation. For example
the usability of the product can be dynamically adjusted based upon input
usability tests and the corresponding results.

5.    Some accessibility tests can be dependant on various factors such as
location or device. In other words the Outcome Value may be due to one or
more of those factors. It would be beneficial to capture these context
elements. Therefore, earl:context may also include the device
(http:Resource), because the tests / test results may also vary with
different devices. In that case, would it make sense to place “context”
outside of earl:content too?

 

A few comments on the EARL document related with typos:

 

1.    Para 2.2; “an assertor asserts and assertion”

2.    Para 2.3; “see not below”

3.    Para 2.5; Under earl:notAvailable, I think the first sentence is not
required or needs revision to make its meaning more clear.

4.    Example 11; “A test result with a outcome …”

 

Some remarks on HTTP schema:

 

1.    Same remark as for EARL schema regarding OWL variant.

2.    I believe the “Connection” class should be enhanced with more
semantics w.r.t. RFC 2616. Those might be beneficial for evaluating
accessibility of dynamic web sites.

3.    The purpose of “New Response Code” is not clear. Shouldn’t it be a
subclass or instance of “Response Code”? Otherwise, is its name appropriate
for the associated comments?

 

Regards,

Shuaib Karim

 

-----Original Message-----
From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra
Sent: Montag, 26. März 2007 13:41
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: Last Call Review: EARL 1.0 Schema Last Call Working Draft

 

 

Dear Group,

 

The W3C WAI Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) [1] 

invites you to comment on two documents published 23 March 2007:

- Evaluation And Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema (Last Call)

   <http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/>

- HTTP Vocabulary in RDF (Working Draft)

   <http://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF/>

 

These documents are of particular interest to Web developers and 

researchers who are interested in software-supported evaluation and 

validation of Web sites, and in Semantic Web technologies to support 

evaluations. The ERT Working Group is particularly looking for feedback 

on how complete the schema is, and how compatible it is with relevant 

metadata vocabularies in this field. Specific questions are also 

highlighted within the sections of the documents. Please send comments 

by 20 April 2007 to:

- ERT WG public mailing list <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

 

Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) is a standardized format to 

express test results. The primary motivation for developing this 

language is to facilitate the exchange of test results between Web 

accessibility evaluation tools in a vendor-neutral and 

platform-independent format. It also provides a vocabulary that can be 

used for other Web quality assurance testing and validation.

 

Please see the overview of EARL for an introduction and more information 

on the documents:

- Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) Overview

   <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/earl.php>

 

The EARL 1.0 Schema document defines a set of vocabulary to express test 

results. It meets requirements set forth for EARL [2] and incorporates 

comments received since the 27 September 2006 Working Draft [3]. While 

this document focuses on the technical details of the specification, the 

companion document EARL 1.0 Guide will provide a tutorial introduction 

to its use.

 

The HTTP Vocabulary in RDF document describes a representation of the 

Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) terms in Resource Description 

Framework (RDF). This updated Working Draft incorporates comments 

received since the 20 December 2006 Working Draft [4]. It is a companion 

document for EARL, and it can also be used as a separate vocabulary for 

other purposes.

 

Note that only the EARL 1.0 Schema is in Last Call Working Draft status 

and only this document is planned to become a W3C Recommendation, Web 

Standard. HTTP Vocabulary in RDF is being developed to support EARL 1.0, 

and be released as a W3C Working Group Note. For a description of the 

different types of W3C documents, and milestones and opportunities to 

contribute to W3C Working Drafts, see:

- How WAI Develops Accessibility Guidelines through the W3C Process

   <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process>

 

Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for 

your comments.

 

Regards,

   Shadi Abou-Zahra - W3C Chair and Team Contact for ERT WG

 

[1] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/>

[2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Requirements/>

[3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-EARL10-Schema-20060927/>

[4] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20061220/>

 

 

-- 

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 |