Re: Suggested EARL Changes

Couple of thoughts:

One is that a set of evaluations might not completely overlap - I do one lot
of tests on day 1, and I do half of those again plus some new test on day 3,
and Sean does half of the overlapping ones plus half of each lot of others
plus a new set on day 5. Is threading the right way to go about this? I ahve
been thinking for a whie about using annotea as one model of storing
assertions - we should look at the way it threads annotations.

Also, is there any reason why CC/PP isn't sufficient for providing "context"
- language and content negotiation information that was used?

Cheers

Charles

On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

  I'm proposing a number of good changes, that will let us be much
  clearer about threading (state) and some of the other issues raised,
  as discussed in the following IRC log:-

  [[[
  02:55:04 <sbp> * sbp cleans up the EARL 1.0 test specification
  02:55:21 <sbp> I'm wondering how to capture threading in EARL; if it's
  even necessary, etc.
  02:55:48 <sbp> also, we need to be able to point to very discrete
  things... precision is critical
  02:56:12 <AaronSw> threading?
  [...]
  02:56:39 <sbp> yes: how to say that you're evaluating the "same thing"
  [...]
  02:56:48 <AaronSw> sbp, equivalentTo?
  02:57:11 <sbp> no, it's not equivalentTo, because the content has
  changed... that's the point
  02:57:21 <sbp> for example you might say "this was broken, now it's
  fixed"
  02:57:39 <sbp> those are two different resources (one is a :Broken,
  the other is a :Fixed)
  02:57:47 <sbp> but the author may regard them as not being so
  02:57:54 <sbp> The basic model is: :Assertor earl:asserts {
  :SomeResource earl:passes :SomeTest } .
  02:58:21 <sbp> let's say that the Assertor is the author of
  :SomeResource, and it doesn't comply to WCAG 1.0
  02:58:26 <sbp> it'd be...
  02:58:42 <sbp> :Assertor earl:asserts { :SomeResource earl:fails
  :WCAG10 } .
  02:58:49 <sbp> then he fixes the page
  02:58:59 <sbp> :Assertor earl:asserts { :SomeNewResource earl:passes
  :WCAG10 } .
  02:59:09 <AaronSw> Aha.
  02:59:25 <AaronSw> :SomeNewResource :previousVersion :SomeResource .
  02:59:25 <sbp> now, he wants to say, the "general thing" identified in
  :SomeResource is the same as in :SomeNewResource
  02:59:37 <sbp> well, that was one of quite a few suggestions, yes
  03:00:01 <sbp> I also suggested a DAML List: (:SomeResource
  :SomeNewResource) a earl:Thread .
  03:00:11 <sbp> but now I think that's unecessary
  [...]
  03:01:05 <sbp> because an EARL TestSubject (the subject in the
  formula) is actually comprised (as per your suggestion!) of a
  resource, and a date or some other disambiguating property
  03:01:16 <AaronSw> :-)
  03:01:23 <AaronSw> I don't like the list idea.
  03:01:28 <sbp> so it's quite easy to do the logic on the following:-
  03:01:57 <sbp> :SomeResource :resource <http://example.org/>; :date
  "2001-10" . :SomeNewResource :resource <http://example.org/>; :date
  "2001-11" .
  03:02:24 <sbp> list idea: well, you're probably right
  03:02:41 <AaronSw> Yeah, doing inferences on the dates would be even
  better:
  03:02:45 <sbp> it's difficult to construct a list automatically
  03:03:57 <AaronSw> { ?x :resource ?uri ; :date ?date . ?y :resource
  ?uri ; :date ?date2 . ?date :laterThan ?date2 .} => { ?x
  :previousVersion ?y } .
  03:04:09 <AaronSw> and make laterThan a cwm builtin
  03:07:01 <sbp> well, you want to *filter* out all of the previous
  versions. { ?x :resource ?u; :date :d2 . ?y :resource ?u; :date ?d2 .
  ?d1 :laterThan ?d2 } log:implies { ?y :resource ?u; :date ?d2 } .
  03:07:49 <sbp> that'd only work for two things, though... not sure how
  you'd get the "latest" property
  03:07:49 <sbp> s/property/value/
  03:08:16 <sbp> er the first d2:-
  03:08:16 <sbp> s/d2/d1/
  03:08:28 <sbp> oh, let me do that again
  03:08:41 <sbp> { ?x :resource ?u; :date :d1 . ?y :resource ?u; :date
  ?d2 . ?d1 :laterThan ?d2 } log:implies { ?y :resource ?u; :date ?d1 }
  .
  03:09:32 <sbp> note that we use "testSubject" at the moment instead of
  resource. I'm thinking of calling it resource... but actually, that's
  wrong
  03:10:04 <sbp> the resource at time a should be the same as at time a'
  03:10:04 <sbp> it really means the representation of
  03:10:04 <sbp> :reprOf
  03:10:32 <sbp> ah, that's perfect!
  03:10:47 <sbp> :MyPageInOct earl:reprOf <http://example.org/>;
  earl:date "2001-10" .
  03:11:12 <sbp> then you can add additional facets such as content
  negotiation, and so on
  03:11:13 <sbp> :MyPageInOct earl:reprOf <http://example.org/>;
  earl:date "2001-10"; dc:format "text/html"; :language "en" .
  03:12:21 <sbp> the problem then is that: earl:reprOf rdfs:domain
  :WebContent .
  03:12:52 <sbp> it's a physical bag of bytes (well, I should go through
  the UAAG terminology for that)
  03:13:34 <sbp> but in EARL, we want to be able to assess tools as
  well. Ah, then you just leave the earl:reprOf bit out
  03:13:59 <sbp> we can set a cardinality restriction on the
  earl:WebContent class so that it must have exactly one "reprOf" arc
  coming off of it. That makes a lot of sense
  03:15:24 <sbp> O.K., so, changes:-
  03:15:33 <sbp> * Remove testSubject
  03:15:40 <sbp> * Add reprOf
  03:16:07 <sbp> * Set cardinality restriction on WebContent to have 1
  and only 1 reprOf
  03:16:52 <sbp> * Add conneg and langneg (?)
  03:16:52 <sbp> * Add isDefinedBy arcs
  03:20:08 <sbp> Now, do we want to give an arc for earl:Tool/earl:UA
  etc. that gives more information/download etc.?
  03:20:16 <sbp> s/an arc/some arcs/
  03:21:32 <AaronSw> Hmm.
  ]]] - http://blogspace.com/swhack/chatlogs/2001-12-09.txt

  I need to go through UAAG carefully, and I'm still hacking on stuff,
  but it's getting quite neat now.

  Cheers,

  --
  Kindest Regards,
  Sean B. Palmer
  @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> .
  :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Saturday, 8 December 2001 22:49:14 UTC