- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:55:22 -0000
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
> [...] I assumed that the association of a context (date, > author, etc) with a given result (pass/fail/...) would hold > when the graphs were merged. Well, some bits hold and some bits don't - and it also depends upon the type of query. For example, you can reduce a bit of EARL so that it loses all of the context info using a filter/rule. In my previous email, I reduced the statements from the following evaluations:- [ earl:asserts [ rdf:subject [ rdf:type earl:WebContent; earl:reprOf <http://www.w3.org/blargh>; earl:date "2001-10-15" ]; rdf:predicate earl:fails; rdf:object :MyTest ] ] . [ earl:asserts [ rdf:subject [ rdf:type earl:WebContent; earl:reprOf <http://www.w3.org/blargh>; earl:date "2001-10-17" ]; rdf:predicate earl:passes; # typo in original rdf:object :MyTest ] ] . RDF Core seem to be in the process of deciding that one reified statement is not necessarily the same as another, even with the same subject, predicate, and object. That's consistent with the way in which I reduced the statements - it's intutive, and it works well with EARL. Of course, we don't actually reify all of the statements in the model. We only reify the actual earl:Assertion itself, because it's all that we need to reify; the others are objective truths, whereas an earl:Assertion is subjective, and varies from tool to tool. This method has been up in the air for some time now, but no one seems to have challenged it, modulo DanBri's hypertext-in-RDF idea. I'd certainly like some discussion of the model - which I've been pondering for some time now - by the group, although everybody seemed happy with it from day one. In fact [credit where credit's due], the model came after an entire weekend of work, and hours of discussions with Aaron Swartz - in which he proposed [1] the model that we had in EARL 0.9. The model in EARL 0.95 is basically the same, except that the predicate and object in the assertion are swapped around since it seems to make a little more sense that way. I can recall discussing the "only reify the Assertion" idea before somewhere, but it's pretty difficult to find specific discussions on the list. It's a bit sad that 90% of the design rationale for EARL is in the lists... ugh. Then again, at least it's all archived. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-er-ig/2001Apr/0033 -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> . :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 22:56:50 UTC