Re: UAAG Conformance Example In EARL

Sean,

Thanks for doing this! We are still working on the requirements
for well-formed claims, in particular to allow for increased
granularity. For example, I think it will be possible (required?)
to indicate the format that is used to satisfy a particular
content type label's requirements (e.g., to satisfy "Image" 
requirements, the user agent implements GIF, PNG, and SVG).

I like the use of rdfs:comment. That will also be important
for checkpoints that the claimant says do not apply (for
rationale).

WCAG 1.0? We require that one version of a claim 
conforms to WCAG 1.0 (this is not quite what the last
call draft says, but refer to proposal [1], section 15).
A machine-readable claim such as one in N3 probably does
not conform to WCAG 1.0, but is very useful (and probably
sufficient). Do you have any comment on the accessibility
of N3 claims?

In our conformance section, should we start pointing
to EARL as a format for making claims?

 - Ian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0074

"Sean B. Palmer" wrote:
> 
> The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [1] currently has a
> section about making valid conformance claims. At the moment, the only
> example [2] is in prose (XHTML), but ERT WG is working on a language
> that should be able to express conformance claims such as these in a
> machine readable format, called "EARL" or the "Evaluation And Report
> Langauge" [3].
> 
> What follows is an informative hack attempt at representing the
> example provided by UAAG in EARL. This is provided purely for comment
> only, and does not constitute any kind of normative example; this is
> merely on the whim of the author :-)
> 
> [[[
> @prefix earl: <http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/0.95#> .
> @prefix : <http://example.com/2001/ns/#> .
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
> @prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> .
> 
> :ProjectXOrg earl:asserts
>    { :Project :passes :UAAG } .
> 
> :ProjectXOrg earl:platform
>      [ :os "MyOperatingSystem"; :version "4.2" ] .
> 
> :Project
>       earl:testSubject <http://example.org/projectx>;
>       a earl:UniqueTestSubject, earl:Tool;
>       dc:date "2001-04-09";
>       earl:version "4.3" .
> 
> :passes a earl:ResultProperty;
>    earl:Validity earl:Pass;
>    earl:confidence earl:High;
>    dc:date "2001-04-09" .
> 
> :UAAG
>    a earl:TestCase;
>    dc:title "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0";
>    earl:level "Double-A; AA";
>    earl:suite <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409>;
>    earl:excludes [ rdfs:seeAlso "UAAG 3.1";
>        rdfs:comment """Unsupported content types: Video, Speech.
>          Unsupported input modalities: Voice""" ];
>    rdfs:seeAlso <http://example.com/checkpoints> .
> ]]]
> 
> Please note that this uses an experimental and as yet unpublished
> schema. I expect (i.e. hope!) this to be published shortly, pending
> approval by ERT. Minor modifications cannot be ruled out.
> 
> Thanks for your time,
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/
> [2] [[[
> <p>On 9 April 2001, Project X (version 2.3) running on
> MyOperatingSystem (version 4.2) conforms to <abbr title="the World
> Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr>'s "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines
> 1.0", http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409, level Double-A.
> Unsupported content types: Video, Speech. Unsupported input
> modalities: Voice. (see section 3.1 of the UAAG 1.0). The <a
> href="http://example.com/checkpoints">list of checkpoints that do not
> apply</a> is available online.</p>
> ]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/#Conformance
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/
> 
> --
> Kindest Regards,
> Sean B. Palmer
> @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
> :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783

Received on Monday, 14 May 2001 10:06:14 UTC