Re: A Crack at an EARL Vocabulary

Piling away...

We need to know how to say that comments are things that we aggregate, and
there is no conflict if there are two different ones, but results (to pick
another property) of evaluation against a particular checkpoint do no
aggregate, and if there are different ones then there is a conflict. Calling
out to the people more  wise in the ways of RDF than i...

digression:
Another part is that stuff which is just comment may be very useful
information, but it should be explicit that tis stuff does not fall into the
things that the machine might deal with - it is only useful as a way of
passing it on to a human. This is intended to make people seperate what is a
clear evaluation of a checkpoint (e.g. "chaals asserts that myTool does
produce valid magicML") from what is a comment (e.g. "but I don't think that
is very cool, since magicML is a bad language anyway", or "the best way to
get this to happen in the tool is to go through the wobblywidget, but it is
more fun to use the wiibblywodgt if you are relying on a mouse").

cheers

Charles

On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:

  As for how we notate comments...

  Charles suggested

  >:len :asserts {:apple :comment "well, it's really sort of a reddish yellow
  >with a touch of violet haze"} .

  I agree with what you're getting at, but I think that unfortunately  this
  isn't the way to notate it.  I say "unfortunately" because I'm finding it
  awkward to reduce everything to triples, as RDF requires.

  The problem is that if we consider these two statements

  :len: :asserts {:apple  :comment  "well, it's really sort of reddish yellow" }
  :chaaz  :assert {:apple  :comment "to my eye it's more of a tan" }

  they indicate a disagreement between :len and :chaaz because they describe
  an apple with a single property  called "comment", and :len and :chaaz
  disagree about the value of that property.  It's the same disagreement as
  saying

  :len :asserts {:apple :color "red" }
  :chaaz :assert {:apple :color "yellow"}

  Now, a human reading these, who knows what the word "comment" means, will
  treat these two pairs of statements differently.  But an RDF interpreter
  with the general rule that

  :p :asserts {:x :y1 }
  :q :asserts {:x :y2 }

  are contradictions if y1 does not equal y2

  will consider the comment constructs to be contradictions.

  That's why I wrote this as

  :c  :type :comment .
  :c  :author: :len .
  :c :applies_to :apple .

  (this can be be abbreviated but these are the underlying meaning)

  At least, this is how I interpret it.  People who think otherwise, please
  pile on <smile />

  Len

  --
  Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
  Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple
  University
  (215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
  http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

  Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/

  The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
  http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/


-- 
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 Friday, 9 February 2001 17:34:08 UTC