Re: ACTION-30: Updated EARL 1.0 Schema

Dear all,

Here comes a new version of the Schema. Hopefully, much better. I
incorporated all the changes suggested by Johannes. As a tribute to him,
I formatted the thing manually :-)

The rdfs labels and comments shall be synchronized with the content of
the schema doc, thus I leave that to its editor(s) :-)

Things to discuss in the next call:

1) Whether we make the schema "pure" RDFS. We can eliminate the OWL
"thingies." We could make all instances from Outcome and TestMode simple
RDF Resources.

2) How to complete the property pointer.

3) Whether we add the following earl:project property.

  <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#project">
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#Software"/>
    <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">DOAPdescription</rdfs:label>
    <rdfs:comment rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"
    >Optional element to point to a DOAP description:
      http://usefulinc.com/ns/doap# {@en}</rdfs:comment>
  </rdf:Property>

I think I do not forget anything ...
regards,
carlos

Johannes Koch wrote:
> 
> Carlos A Velasco schrieb:
>> Hi Shadi, all,
>>
>> According to my action item, here comes a new version of the Schema. The
>> main changes are:
>>
>> - Added ontology descriptor.
>> - Cleaned-up owl:oneOf were unnecessary.
>> - Removed SingleAssertor and CompoundAssertor.
>> - Added earl:mainAssertor property for a member of a foaf:Group.
> 
> Didn't we say, earl:mainAssertor would be a subProperty of foaf:member?
> 
>> - Removed earl:Outcome. It suffices with the given values as Resource.
> 
> The earl:outcome property has range earl:Outcome. So earl:Outcome is
> still needed.
> 
>> - Removed earl:Content and properties.
>> - Cleaned-up values for earl:TestMode and earl:TestResult.
> 
> IMHO, the owl:Thing resources for outcomes and test modes should still
> have explicit rdf:type earl:Outcome and earl:TestMode, although this
> could be inferred from the respective property ranges.
> 
>> - Added optional property project (see following email).
>>
>> When checked by someone else, it could be uploaded to the server :-)
> 
> Why is there still a cardinality constraint on
> earl:TestResult/earl:outcome?
> 

-- 
Dr Carlos A Velasco
  Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT
  Web Compliance Center: http://webcc.fit.fraunhofer.de/
  imergo®: http://imergo.com/ · http://imergo.de/
  Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany)
  Tel: +49-2241-142609 · Fax: +49-2241-1442609