Re: EARL for a mixed-input report

This seems to make sense, except that I don't think you need to have two
levels. The assertor is either the  tool or the person - the fact that a tool
chooses to trust a person over itself means that it should suppress its own
result, or that it should provide both results allowing someone else to
decide the tool is smarter than the person.

The significance of reification is that it lets us say "joe says that" and
"fred says that" without running into a problem because the things they say
are contradictory (which is what would normally happen if we merged the two
statements as bare RDF).

On the other hand the new schema uses some nicer property names to make the
reification less visible and make it more obvious what is going on - the
tested, result, etc properties are less general than
subject,predicate,object, but I think that is an advantage.

Cheers

Chaals

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Nick Kew wrote:

>
>
>As (most of) you know, AccessValet 1.0 generates diagnostic messages
>to help a web content developer identify and fix violations of
>WCAG or Section508.
>
>AccessValet 1.1 extends the capabilities of 1.0 by taking the operator
>through a process of classifying each warning: is this in fact a
>violation, and if so what to do about it.  The purpose of this is to
>generate a briefer accessibility report that can form part of a
>management or QA process.  EARL is of course a primary target format.
>
>I've been messing around with how to express this in EARL, and I'd
>like to ask for review on my current ideas.  I've taken a brief
>Valet report, and added comments to the EARL to make it clear what's
>going on (chaals - does this use of "heuristic" meet your approval?)
>
>I still don't think I understand the significance of reification here:-(
>
><?xml version="1.0"?>
><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>        xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/1.0-test#">
>
><!-- Level1 is the automatic analysis.  Detailed level1 reports are
>     as seen in the online AccessValet
>-->
><Assertor rdf:ID="level1">
>  <testmode
>      rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/1.0-test#automatic"/>
>  <name>Accessibility Valet</name>
>  <contactInfo>http://valet.webthing.com/access/</contactInfo>
></Assertor>
>
><!-- Level2 results are generated as the operator ticks off each warning
>     in the Level 1, and marks how to treat it.  The l2 assertor asserts
>     a result based on the sum total of assertions.
>-->
><Assertor rdf:ID="level2">
>  <testmode
>      rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/1.0-test#heuristic"/>
>  <name>Accessibility Valet (level 2)</name>
>  <contactInfo>http://valet.webthing.com/access/</contactInfo>
></Assertor>
>
><!-- The operator asserts things about individual warnings -->
>
><Assertor rdf:ID="operator">
>  <testmode
>      rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/1.0-test#manual"/>
>  <name>Nick</name>
></Assertor>
>
><!-- All assertions in this report are about the page as a whole.
>     Assign an ID to it so we can collect page info in one place.
>-->
><rdf:Description rdf:ID="page">
>  <WebContent rdf:resource="file:///home/nick/valet/tests/test01.html"/>
>  <date>Thu Oct 24 15:26:19 2002</date>
></rdf:Description>
>
><!-- What we are testing against: in the case of WCAG,
>     this is in two parts
>-->
><rdf:Description rdf:ID="testcase">
>  <testCase rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#"/>
>  <level>WCAG3</level>
></rdf:Description>
>
><!-- One level 1 assertion (result).  It should perhaps also reference
>     a detailed Level1 report; OTOH that's for the developer,
>     and (s)he may not want to publish or even save it
>
>     Result here is always "suspectagainst", quantified by the note.
>-->
><Assertion rdf:ID="l1result">
>  <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#page"/>
>  <rdf:predicate
>    rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/1.0-test#suspectAgainst"/>
>  <note>Possible pass, but check carefully</note>
>  <rdf:object rdf:resource="#testcase"/>
>  <AssertedBy rdf:resource="#level1"/>
></Assertion>
>
><!-- One level 2 assertion (result).  This is the bottom-line of the
>     whole report
>-->
><Assertion rdf:ID="l2result">
>  <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#page"/>
>  <rdf:predicate
>     rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/1.0-test#Fail"/>
>  <rdf:object rdf:resource="#testcase"/>
>  <Note>Repairs Identified</Note>
>  <AssertedBy rdf:resource="#level2"/>
></Assertion>
>
><!-- Any number of assertions may be made by the operator based on the
>     warnings in the Level 1 report
>-->
><Assertion rdf:ID="w1">
>  <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#page"/>
>  <rdf:predicate rdf:parseType="Resource">
>    <testResult
>      rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/1.0-test#Pass"/>
>    <note>Guideline Satisfied</note>
>  </rdf:predicate>
>  <rdf:object rdf:parseType="Resource">
>    <testCase rdf:resource="#testcase"/>
>    <note>Ensure that documents are readable without stylesheets too.</note>
>  </rdf:object>
>  <AssertedBy rdf:resource="#operator"/>
>  <note>Tested in Lynx</note>
></Assertion>
><Assertion rdf:ID="w2">
>  <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#page"/>
>  <rdf:predicate rdf:parseType="Resource">
>    <testResult
>      rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/1.0-test#Fail"/>
>    <note>Action Required</note>
>  </rdf:predicate>
>  <rdf:object rdf:parseType="Resource">
>    <testCase rdf:resource="#testcase"/>
>    <note>Document should identify language.</note>
>  </rdf:object>
>  <AssertedBy rdf:resource="#operator"/>
>  <note>Add "lang" attribute to "html" element</note>
></Assertion>
>
>
></rdf:RDF>
>
>
>

-- 
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 00:47:02 UTC