- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:10:09 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <00d601c0c9e6$ab088fe0$6ded89d4@z5n9x1>
Dear All, This is an alpha version (i.e. hack attempt for comment, rather than a working version) of an RDF Schema for EARL 0.9, attached as <0.9.n3>, in Notation3 (also available on the Web at [1]). An RDF version is also available online [2]. It seems that some people have trouble vizualizing Notation3... I hope to be proving an SVG version of the EARL 0.9 model in due course, if I have the time. Basically, I have cleared it up so that it becomes a list of "Evaluations", which have three basic parts (i.e. a triple):- (stuff about the assertor) earl:Asserts (the test result) . If you go through the schema, you should be able to work out all of the relavent pieces fairly easily. For example, it is broken down into pieces, so that where I have "(the test result)" above, that is actually comprised of something like:- (the test result) = ((the result assertions) trueForDate (date)) . There are a handful of contexts like this, which some people may find uncomfortable, but it is easily overcome by saying that a certain URI is equal to a context, and then using that URI instead. So for example, instead of saying:- (my stuff) (my other stuff) (even more stuff) . You could say:- :a = (my stuff) . :b = (my other stuff) . :c = (even more stuff) . :a :b :c . You get the idea - it's a bit like (*shudder*) OOP. Unfortunately, out of the RDF people that I have asked about this particular model, none seem all that certain about how effective it might be, or whatever, but I am confident that this is as close as one can possibly represent Daniel's prose stuff in RDF. One other thing: what particular format do people expect EARL to be in: XML RDF, Notation3, or something else? I think that the schema available at whatever namespace we decide to use should be in the format that people are most likely to use. I asked on the #rdfig list about just how stable the Notation3 specification is for our purposes, and I got this dialogue going:- [[[ <sbp> DanC, are you there? Is Notation3 stable enough to be used in specifications? I mean, really? What advantages over XRDF at this stage? <sbp> Currently, some people seem to be put off by Notation3 because it's not a recommendation. With EARL we have a choice of N3/XRDF... and I'm not sure which way to develop. IF CWM could do N3 <=> XRDF perfectly... <DanC> "stable enough" is in the eye of the beholder. It's stable enough for stuff I'm working on. <sbp> Is it stable enough for global implementation? <DanC> I dunno what "global implementation" is. <sbp> If people use it in their little evaluation programs, it's not going to be superceeded the next day by something else, is it? <DanC> not superceded: no guarantees whatsoever. <sbp> Bah, we'll probably have to use XML RDF then. <DanC> RDF/n3 is not on the W3C Recommendation track; if you want to use it in WAI REC-track stuff, you'll have to copy the RDF/n3 spec into your spec. <DanC> or not... <sbp> Well, EARL isn't going to be a REC either, at least it doesn't look so at this stage <DanC> i.e. the cc/pp spec has an informal notation in its diagrams. You could just use RDF/n3 without saying you're using n3. <sbp> but it will have multiple implementations <DanC> certainly RDF/n3 should be considered just short-hand for RDF/xml. ]]] - http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-04-20.txt But I still feel that Notation3 will be easier for programmers to implement, because XML RDF is so unwieldy. Clearly we have had success in sending each other Notation3/EARL examples on the list, and discussion took off when we found out that it was suited for what we are doing. Anyway, I like the model for EARL as it currently stands, and I feel that it has the advantages that it is:- a) Easy to process b) Extensible c) Compatable with RDF systems d) Fairly human-understandable e) Performs its purpose well In a separate email, I shall post the Notation3 examples that I did for an previous action item in 0.9A code. Actually, I think I already did one in the schema itself, commented out. I hope that it is farily self-explanatory. I've spent a good part of the day hacking on this; I hope it's O.K. :-) [1] http://infomesh.net/2001/03/earl/0.9.n3 [2] http://infomesh.net/2001/03/earl/0.9.rdf -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Attachments
- text/plain attachment: 0.9.n3
Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 18:09:32 UTC