- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:22:35 +0200
- To: rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt
- CC: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Rui, On 12.4.2011 11:05, Rui Lopes wrote: > Hi group, > > Some comments below: > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:48, Shadi Abou-Zahra<shadi@w3.org> wrote: >> Dear ERT WG, >> >> Following recent discussions, it seem that there is consensus for the >> "conformance sections" to move out of the vocabulary definition specs (EARL >> 1.0 Schema, HTTP-in-RDF, ...) and put them "elsewhere". >> >> Before attempting to create yet a new spec document, I would like to see if >> we can change the current Guide from an introductory resource into something >> more substantial. Remember, the guide document is on Rec-Track (because it >> has been split from the previous EARL spec). > > +1 on this. > >> To initiate the discussion I propose changing the title and content from >> "EARL 1.0 Guide" to "Developer Guide for EARL 1.0". The outline for this >> [new] document would include: > > I like the new title! :) > >> * combine sections 3& 4, and shorten them editorially (some examples and >> text are more verbose then necessary) > > Yes. > >> * add a section on conformance for reports, consumers, and producers (maybe >> it won't be called "conformance" though) > > Uhmmmm, what other title could express "conformance", then? IMHO, devs > are accustomed to the word "conformance". > >> * add a new section on serialization with sub-sections for XML and possibly >> JSON > > Before heading onto these vocabularies, I think we should consider the > following: > > 1) XML: since RDF is typically serialised into RDF/XML, we really > really must have a strong rationale to provide an alternate XMLy > representation. I would definitely prefer a lightweight approach on > this. Shall I propose (X)HTML + RDFa? > > 2) JSON: in the same line of the previous rationale, we must be > careful with the creation of a JSON vocabulary for EARL. Instead of > creating everything from scratch, I think we should follow RDF/JSON > (http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/12/new_rdf_working_group_rdfjson.html). To be clear, I am not suggesting new vocabularies. Basically it is a DTD (or better, an XML Schema) for the RDF/XML serialization of EARL. This would allow tool developers to regard EARL as XML yet make their output usable by RDF tools too. Once we have the XML serialization, I think it would be easy to create a JSON serialization from it. I think RDFa would be a great addition to the Guide too, to explain to developers how to insert machine-readable EARL data in human-readable HTML web pages. However, I think we could create such a section later on; for instance, during the Candidate Recommendation stage. > Now, do we really to have these serialisations within this document, > or should they reside elsewhere (probably as W3C Notes), complementing > the official EARL Schema? This is a decision we will need to make. I personally favor avoiding more specs than we already have. I think we should be able to get by with a spec for each vocabulary definition (Schema, HTTP, Content, & Pointers), and a well-written guide for tool developers. Let's discuss your comments on the call in a bit... Best, Shadi > My 2 cents, > Rui > > >> >> What do people think of this approach and suggestion? >> >> Best, >> Shadi >> >> -- >> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ | >> WAI International Program Office Activity Lead | >> W3C Evaluation& Repair Tools Working Group Chair | >> >> > > -- 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, 13 April 2011 10:23:05 UTC