- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:25:57 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
Some thoughts, based on what Sean put out recently, with some of the stuff that danbri and I did added into the mix. (We had a few porperties: + meets (to mean conforms to something), + meets1, meets2, meets3 (for the relative priority checkpoints of ATAG, which is what we were trying to do the thing for), + notApplicable + okFor (either meets, or is not applicable) and a tool property that meant this is a tool that ATAG applies to) So I might want to say: --------------- Charles says: MyTool Meets checkpoints 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 of yourspec For checkpoint 1.6 of yourspec, MyTool meets subpoints 1.6.2 and 1.6.4 and 1.6.6, as tested by nicksToolz For checkpoint 1.6 of yourspec, MyTool meets subpoint 1.6.1 as tested by hand. ---------------- yourspec says: anything meets yourspec level z if it meets checkpoints 1.2, 1.4, and for checkpoint 1.6 it meets subpoints 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.6.4 --------------- Dan says: MyTool meets checkpoint 1.6 of yourspec --------------- Sean says: MyTool meets subopints 1.6.3 and 1.6.4 of checkpoint 1.6 of yourspec, as tested by hand --------------- Now, I don't think much of dan's testing methods, so I want to exclude them. (this is part of a query interface language really). Then I want to find out what things MyTool meets, and whether there is anything else to be done to meet level z of yourspec. At some pont I might like to add some comments about this -I thought seeAlso was an RDF property already, that we could use. I would be using dc:author to say who is making the calims, the old atagdemo scheme for the conformance properties, and some of Sean's properties (mode?) to make assertions about how the tests were done. cheers Charles On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Sean B. Palmer wrote: >From terms used by Daniel [1] and Len [2], I have melded them together to form (another) seminal EARL vocabulary:- earl:asserts (x asserts y) CMN Use DC:author earl:comment (x comments that y) CMN how is this different from earl:detail ? earl:confidence (x is asserted to a confidence level of y) earl:detail (x has a fuller assertion y) earl:domain (x has the root domain y) CMN What does this mean? (i.e. why is it useful?) earl:testpage (x has test page y, or x is an earl:testpage) earl:langtype (x is of langtype y [e.g. x earl:langtype "XHTML"]) earl:mode (x has a test mode of y) earl:person (x is an earl:person [@@ rdf:type discrepancies]) Why do we need to know that something is a person, unless it is something that is either "person or tool"? earl:result (x has the result y) earl:status (x has the status y) Why is result differnt from status. Use case? earl:tool (x is an earl:tool) Cheers Charles [1] These are the terms that Daniel invented, sans explanation. I have added some alternatives in [brackets]. edl:TestId [use rdf:ID] edl:TestResult edl:TestConfidence edl:TestMode edl:TestProgram edl:TestPerson edl:TestDetail edl:TestComment [2] These are the terms that Len recently used in the N3 EARL example, with annotations. e:domain e:homepage e:type [use rdf:type] e:human e:name [use foaf:name] e:tool e:uri [use rdf:resource] e:partOf [use daml:intersectionOf???] e:says e:altStatus Note that there are some equivalences between [1] and [2]. For example, edl:TestProgram = e:tool, and edl:TestPerson = e:human. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . [ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.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: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2001 23:26:05 UTC