Re: [updated] EARL 1.0 Schema

Hi Johannes,

Johannes Koch wrote:
> Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ref: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090223>
>>
>> An updated editor's drafts of EARL 1.0 Schema is available for review. 
>> Please have a close look at the new approach in the conformance 
>> section [1], we will need to decide if this is the approach to take.
> 
> Looks ok to me. However it's not clear whether conforming processing 
> tools have to be able to process all the features described. Or are 
> there properties that are required for processing while others are not? 
> Similar for producing tools.

OK, we can clarify the wording. The idea is that conforming processors 
must process all the classes and properties, as they are described in 
the "Validation" section:
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090223#validation>

Do you agree with this approach?


>> Note that we also seem to have an issue with the current concept for 
>> mainAssertor [2], since foaf:member has the domain foaf:Group and the 
>> range foaf:Agent.
> 
> So every time you use earl:mainAssertor in a triple, the subject becomes 
> of type foaf:Group and the object of type foaf:Agent. Is this a problem?

If we make earl:mainAssertor a sub-property of foaf:member, then indeed 
this would be the consequence. In this case it would be better to rename 
the property to something like mainMember or primaryMember or such.

Another approach could be to keep both the domain and the range of the 
earl:mainAssertor property to be earl:Assertor (as currently defined). 
This would mean that both the subject and the object in such a triple 
would always be of type earl:Assertor.

Any preferences?

Regards,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 09:05:12 UTC