Re: Re-Evaluating EARL

I agree with danbri about dark triples in particular. I think that with a
simple, stable EARL 1.0 (and we are not there yet) as soon as possible we
will do better. In particular, if we can get some interoperability among
life-size applications - page/site valet, Acc-*, and a couple of others, for
the chain from testing, identifying problems, solving them, retesting, then
we will have something very useful and valuable for both accessibility and
the semantic web.

On the test case stuff, There is a real need to be able to identify the fact
that a test is in fact a component part of another, or that a particular
result is derived, based on results of component tests. I don't think that
needs to be hung off every evaluation - a test suite should be able to
expresss its own components, and so it should be possible to find out that
MyCompany's test a.b.c is part of a set of tests that MyCompany claims
collectively amount to a test for WCAG 19.8

Is this reasoning what is meant by testMode being heuristic?

cheers

Chaals

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Dan Brickley wrote:


  Sean,

  <opinion>
  Neither the RDF Core WG nor the WebOnt WG are yet clear on what 'dark
  triples' are, nor whether we really need them. It is *way* to early to
  start deploying that stuff in EARL.
  </opinion>

  keep it simple, stablise a 1.0, and try out the fancy stuff in v2

  On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

  > Well, re-evaluating bits of it, anyway. These are just some notes - read
  > with a pinch of salt [1].
  >
  > * EARL Test Cases as Classes
[snip]
  >
  > <WackierStuff>
  >
  > * Dark Triples
[snip snip snip snip tear tear scrunch scrunch file in back of back of mind]
  > </WackierStuff>
  >
  > * TestCase ID/Suite
  >
[snip]

Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 04:45:28 UTC