- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:57:44 -0400
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "David Weinkauf" <d.weinkauf@utoronto.ca>
Thanks for the helpful suggestions. I think it may be simpler though if we could all agree on a URI that represents the guideline. You've taken this approach with checkpoints and it works fine. Example from Sidar's HERA: <earl:testcase rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-text-equivalent" /> How about using <earl:testcase rdf:resource=http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#a/> to represent the WCAG 1.0 level 'A' guideline? Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org> To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca> Cc: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 11:11 AM Subject: Re: EARL Testcase > Well, one thing to do is to try and agree on URIs to use. For example, I have > used the URIs of the checkpoints to cover claiming each individual > checkpoint, and that is what WAINu, HERA, and Axforms all do. > > If you want to declare that 2 URIs mean the same thing you should use an OWL > property: > > foo:waigl owl:sameAs bar:wcag1 > > which relies on tools that understand a bit of OWL to make it work. If you > only want to require tools to understand RDF Schema you can go with > > foo:waigl rdfs:subClass bar:wcag1 AND bar:wcag1 rdfs:subClass foo:waigl > > So long as the information is available (Hera reports actually link to a > bunch of stuff. Axforms reports include a lot of information in the report) > whether a particular tool understands it or not is a problem for the tool > developer. > > But having this kind of OWL stuff is probably useful. I recently wrote a > piece for the WCAG group [1] explaining how to use some other OWL stuff to > describe the fact that meeting some checkpoint was the same as meeting some > set of sub-points - for example WCAG double-A is the set of WCAG level A plus > all priority 2 checkpoints, but it applies equally for the more detailed work > people are doing. > > The alternative is to make up special EARL magic which people would still > have to implement - it seems to me easier to sell the idea that implementing > this stuff is in fact doing stock-standard work for your basic parser, and > you can expect to find the right piece of basic parser off the shelf if you > look, rather than some once-off code useful only in EARL tools. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0025 > > cheers > > Chaals > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Chris Ridpath wrote: > > > > >EARL can be used to state that a particular resource passes or fails a > >particular test. The test can be something subjective like the WAI > >guidelines. We can use the earl:testcase element to make these sort of > >statements. > > > >Our checker program makes a statement that a particular page passes or fails > >the WAI guidelines and uses our URI as the definition of the WAI guidelines. > >Example: > > > ><earl:testcase > >rdf:resource="http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/wcag-1-0-aa.xml" /> > > > >Other programs will generate a similar statement and will reference their > >definition of the WAI guidelines. Example: > > > ><earl:testcase rdf:resource="http://accessibility.tester/WCAG-AA.html" /> > > > >How can a program collect the EARL results from various checking tools and > >tell if the page passes/fails the WAI guidelines? > > > >To put it another way - How can you tell that both programs are testing the > >same guidelines? (Perhaps using the earl:testcase rdf:about attribute?) > > > >Chris > > > > > > Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 > SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22 > Post: 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia or > W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 11:58:03 UTC