- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:36:41 -0500 (EST)
- To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Err, you're right. Our structure is slightly different. I don't think a document conforms to an EARL statement. Although an EARL statement is a kind of DC.relation - a more powerful version of something like document.X DC.relation.conformsTo checkpoint.PQR Where checkpoint.PQR is a thing with a URI that we expect to be stable, then I think this is a sufficiently "established standard" for the purpose of the DC statement - WCAG1A-Conformance is an example, but myTestSuite point 2.1.z is a reasonable example too, and useful if I publish a claim that conforming to some collection of myTestSuite points implies conformance to WCAG checkpoints 1.4 and 4.1. The reason we have greater complexity is that we anticipate the possibility that there will be conflicting statements of conformance (for example because someone tested with two or three tools as well as manually, or got three different people to make an evaluation) and that people will want to be able to make use of the variety - Dublin Core doesn't seem to work like that - it seems based on the assumption that there will be one authorative set of metadata about an object. Cheers Chaals On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: >I don't think earl:result is a subProperty of DC.Relation.conformsTo since >they define it [1] as, "A reference to an established standard to which the >resource conforms." I think this is similar to earl:testcase without the >detail (confidence, validity) of earl:result. > >I expect people can use conformsTo to make a simple conformance claim along >the lines of: ><meta name="DC.Relation.conformsTo" >content="http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1A-Conformance"> > >At the DC2002 meeting, I was hoping that people could use conformsTo to >point to EARL, e.g.: ><meta name="DC.Relation.conformsTo" content="http://example.org/mypage.earl"/> >but now I'm not sure if that is appropriate since >http://example.org/mypage.earl is not an "established standard"...it is the >metadata defining how the resource conforms to an established standard. > >Suppose we can tweak it that way? >--wendy > >[1] from http://purl.org/dc/terms/ ><rdf:Property rdf:about="&dctermsns;conformsTo"> > <rdfs:label xml:lang="en-US">conforms to</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en-US">A reference to an established standard >to which the resource conforms.</rdfs:comment> > <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&dcns;relation"/> > <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="&dctermsns;"/> > <dcterms:issued>2001-05-21</dcterms:issued> > <rdfs:seeAlso > rdf:resource="http://www.dublincore.org/usage/decisions/#2001.01"/> > </rdf:Property> > >At 02:39 PM 10/29/02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >>Is earl:result a subProperty of DC.relation.conformsto ? (I assume that it >>doesn't matter, since we can write more info afterwards, but it would be good >>to know... >> >>Cheers >> >>Chaals >> >>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: >> >> > >> >Hello, >> > >> >Does anyone want to volunteer to write an app that would transform 0.95 >> >earl to 1.0? Sean wrote an 0.9 to 0.95 conversion in python (that converts >> >earl in n3) [1]. It would also be nice to have help writing up a prose >> >version of the diffs between 0.95 and 1.0 to be included in an appendix. >> > >> >spec update >> >- I finished incorporating the rest of sean's writing from a while >> >ago. Are there any pieces that people feel I missed? >> >- There are some new bits throughout the introduction. >> >- Finally filled in the extensibility section [2] based on an example Sean >> >wrote. Since we decided not to add Severity to the schema, I used it as an >> >example extension. >> > >> >Today I'll be making some changes to the schema (primarily testmode), >> >describe reliance on DC terms (e.g. date), and include the >> >normalization/robust metadata proposal as an issue to be resolved in a >> >future draft or separate draft (it could be its own thing - thoughts?). If >> >no one volunteers to do the diffs between 0.95 and 1.0 then I'll do that as >> >well. >> > >> >I have to do the usual checks (spell check, syntax validity, w3c >> >publication rules, etc.), fix one of the images, make sure images are >> >described well, properly link to references, etc. etc. >> > >> >All in all, hoping this goes to TR *soon*. Any and all comments welcome. >> > >> >Best, >> >--wendy >> > >> >[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/0.9to0.95 >> >[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2002/10/WD-EARL10-20021028.html#extensibility >> > >> > >> >>-- >>Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 >>SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI >> 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 >> 78 22 >> W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France > > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 00:36:41 UTC