Re: EARL conformance levels

My two cents:

- partial conformance: anything that produces or consumes EARL terms
So, we have an application that produces or consumes, say, only
earl:software elements like:

<earl:Software rdf:about="#tool">
  <dc:title xml:lang="en">Cool Tool</dc:title>
  <dc:description xml:lang="en">My favorite tool!</dc:description>
  <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://example.org/tools/cool/"/>
  <dc:hasVersion>1.0.3</dc:hasVersion>
  <dc:isPartOf rdf:resource="http://example.org/tools/cms/"/>
  <dc:hasPart rdf:resource="http://example.org/tools/cool/#module-1"/>
</earl:Software>

and only these elements. By definition, then, this software is rated
partially conforming. In other words, I think the partial conformance
criterion is too loose. We may want something a little more stringent,
like:

- partial conformance: anything that produces or consumes one or more of
the basic components of an earl:Assertion (i.e. earl:Assertor,
earl:TestSubject, earl:TestCriterion, earl:TestResult)

- EARL core: anything that produces or consumes all EARL 1.0 Schema terms
+1 (just added 'terms' at end)

- EARL http: EARL core + HTTP-in-RDF + Content-in-RDF
+1

- EARL pointers: EARL core + Pointers-in-RDF
+1

  - EARL full: EARL http + EARL pointers
+1

Only concern is one that Johannes raised - do we need to have
implementations that demonstrate each level of conformance?
--> Mike Squillace
IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center

W:512.286.8694
M:512.970.0066

External: http://www.ibm.com/able
Internal: http://w3.ibm.com/able


                                                                           
             Shadi Abou-Zahra                                              
             <shadi@w3.org>                                                
             Sent by:                                                   To 
             public-wai-ert-re         public-wai-ert@w3.org               
             quest@w3.org                                               cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
             06/18/2009 06:30          EARL conformance levels             
             AM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Dear group,

Yesterday we decided on the following definition:
  - "EARL is a vocabulary, the terms of which are defined in multiple
specifications (e.g. EARL 1.0 Schema, Representing Content in RDF, HTTP
Vocabulary in RDF, Pointer Methods in RDF)"

This concludes that all terms defined by EARL 1.0 Schema, Representing
Content in RDF, HTTP Vocabulary in RDF, and Pointer Methods in RDF are
part of the EARL vocabulary.

In this context, a question was raised if we want to have different
levels of conformance to the EARL vocabulary:
  - partial conformance: anything that produces or consumes EARL terms
  - EARL core: anything that produces or consumes all EARL 1.0 Schema
  - EARL http: EARL core + HTTP-in-RDF + Content-in-RDF
  - EARL pointers: EARL core + Pointers-in-RDF
  - EARL full: EARL http + EARL pointers

NOTE: EARL http is *not* a subset of EARL pointers.

Please respond to the list with your opinion:
  - does this separation make sense, and is it useful?
  - what are the pros/cons in terms of adoption?
  - do you support or object to this suggestion?
  - other comments?


Regards,
   Shadi

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