Re: Thoughts on 1.0

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Nadia Heninger wrote:

  * I would like EARL to be normalized so that there is a specific form for
  an EARL report.  I already said this in my last message, but I think it's
  important for queryability.  Other things can be tacked on, of course, but
  the basic form needs to be standard.  This should be reflected in the schema.

You mean that we should provide an XML schema which EARL processors should be
able to produce? This would seem a god idea. I do not think that everything
can always be handled by XML (this is why we are using RDF) but a lot of
common use cases probably can, and it would be good to have a defined schema
that could be sued for this.

  * It seems to contain too many odd and specific properties at the moment.
  Might it be more useful to leave a lot of random properties (earl:level,
  earl:excludes, earl:EquivalenceRelation, earl:format, etc) out of the
  schema entirely and just concentrate on providing general classes that
  users can extend to satisfy their needs?  In other words, earl:TestSubject,
  earl:Assertor, and earl:TestCase are all rich areas that people are just
  going to end up defining to suit their own needs (as I ended up having to
  do.)  EARL should just be the glue that binds them together.

  Summary: standardize and clean the spec, we're not ready for 1.0 yet.
  Perhaps we should clean it up and declare a .96?

Agree with both these ideas.

Chaals

Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 03:39:54 UTC