- From: Nick Gibbins <nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:46:57 +0100
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> writes: > toolX claims resourceY passes tests T1 and T2, and claims that > therefore resourceY passes criterionA > personX claims resourceY passes test T4 but fails test T3, and > therefore fails criterionA (without testing T1 or T2). > ToolZ claims that since resourceY passes test T1 and T4 (based on > claims by other assertors), resourceY passes criterionB > Then we don't have to worry at what level the tests and criteria are > - we can mix "double-A WCAG conformance" and "content of the alt > attribute ends with the string '.gif'" easily. Does this mean that we can view a criterion can be viewed as a group of testcases? > This is in fact useful - if we want to test WCAG level A and Section > 508 then we can do it by mixing the claim level-A with a few > checkpoints from elsewhere in WCAG. ie. overlapping groups of testcases > Of course it requires that we can express the fact that > <earl:passes> > <rdf:Bag> > <rdf:li><some:requirement/></rdf:li> > <rdf:li><and:someOthers/></rdf:li> > </rdf:Bag> > </earl:passes> > implies > <earl:passes> > <new:requirement/> > </earl:passes> This is equivalent to the example that I gave yesterday with the earl:derivedFrom property. > cwm can do this with log:implies (I forget what the log namespace > refers to though) - we just need to be able to express it with the > right syntax. Is it possible to use RDF Schema - Personally speaking, I'd steer well clear of any RDF solution which required use of the log: namespace; it's non-standard and not particularly clearly defined. > <rdf:about> > <rdf:Bag> > <rdf:li><some:requirement/></rdf:li> > <rdf:li><and:someOthers/></rdf:li> > </rdf:Bag> > <rdfs:subClass new:requirement/> > </rdf:about> > or am I breaking something here? (And if it is possible does that > introduce a requirement to understand RDF schema for EARL processing > that wassn't already there?) You're breaking several things there; I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do. > We will also, I suspect, want to identify the things that were > included to draw the conclusion. While this is not strictly > necessary, being able to check them is helpful. It means that if one > of those conditions changes we can retest the computed results > without needing to retest all the things that led to the inference. This was the purpose of the earl:derivedFrom property that I introduced yesterday. A sketch of a scenario to illustrate this is given below: T1, T2 are tests TG1 is the group of tests which contains T1 and T2 assertion-1 says that X passes test T1 assertion-2 says that X fails test T2 assertion-3 says that X fails TG1, and that this assertion is derived from assertion-1 and assertion-2 [X is changed so that it passes T2] assertion-4 says that X passes test T2 assertion-5 says that X passes TG1, and that this assertion is derived from assertion-1 and assertion-4 > (my brain isn't sufficiently wired into RDF syntax today to write > the examples - can anyone help?) Similarly, I'll rework this sketch in RDF/XML on Monday if people want. -- Nick Gibbins nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk IAM (Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia) tel: +44 (0) 23 80592831 Electronics and Computer Science fax: +44 (0) 23 80592865 University of Southampton
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 11:47:04 UTC