- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 04:45:26 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- cc: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
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