RE: [earl] name, email and tools

hey charles,

for an earl:person, i think foaf might be a good vocabulary to use but
there may also be other ones as well. for an earl:tool, i agree that
name and (especially) email are inadequate descriptions for a tool.
again, surely there are plenty of RDF vocabularies out there that might
be more specific on properties of a software such as version number
(maybe even some user settings?) and so on.

it seems to me a good idea to (re-)use vocabularies as the range of
earl:Assertor and we need to pick them.

PS: congrats on the EARL support in hera... ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: []
On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 05:31
To: ER
Subject: [earl] name, email and tools

Hi folks,

we have just about completed the EARL output for Hera 

We were wondering if an earl:Tool can have an earl:email (I have been 
using foaf:mbox to identify assertors, but I think we will use both 
earl:name and earl:email and foaf:name and foaf:mbox now).

In general is it a good idea to keep the name and email properties in 
the EARL schema? It seems to me that we are better off moving them out, 
or defining them as being properties of tools, and using foaf:Person to 
identify assertors who are people.

earl:Person is a subclass of Assertor, as is earl:Tool. I think we'd be 
better off saying that an earl:Assertor has a range that includes 
foaf:Person and earl:Tool.

whaddaya think?


Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar                      

Received on Sunday, 4 April 2004 09:06:09 UTC