Re: XML Validation EARL update

On Thu, 23 May 2002, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

> > So assuming a user is really set on using earl:fails instead
> > of just earl:Fail, but wants to qualify their predicate with
> > other properties like Nick does, what would you suggest?
>
> Consider that user A wants to use {earl:fails :myLevel :Severe} and user B
> wants to use {earl:fails :level :Light} (or even that user A later wants to
> use a different level). When you merge the two you get a conflict;

Erm, you're dealing with qualifiers that are subjective measures.
The severity property for a validation error is clearly defined,
so if two validators disagree then one of them is buggy.

>	 you
> can't declare things about terms in the EARL namespace that you don't know
> to be true, and in this case aren't true. Note that we already have a
> confidence level set for earl:fails: {earl:fails earl:confidence earl:High
> (earl:Certain in the latest draft)}.

These errors are Confidence: Certain.  Severity is a different property.

Likewise, when a document fails validation, errorCount is a property
of that failure.

The point is that an RDF predicate may need to have properties
additional to an earl:Fail.

-- 
Nick Kew

Available for contract work - Programming, Unix, Networking, Markup, etc.

Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 13:24:59 UTC