- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:23:55 +0200
- To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <027401c49a55$b42afbb0$6466a8c0@K2>
hi charles, as discussed, attached are two examples of my attempts to combine EARL reports with OWL rules to derive conclusions. the first scenario, Tool A, conducts one test for each of the two checkpoints it is capable of handling (file: report1.rdf). hence the OWL rules (toolA.owl) use one-to-one mappings, the owl:equivalentClass, to map the internal tests to the checkpoints. the second scenario, Tool B, conducts two tests for each of the two checkpoints it is capable of handling (files: report2.rdf). hence the OWL rules (toolB.owl) use one-to-many mappings, the owl:intersectionOf, to map the internal tests to the checkpoints. note that in the second scenario only one of the rules is implemented. for each checkpoints a whole series of OWL rules will need to handle the different combinations of the possible test results. regards, shadi --- --- Shadi Abou-Zahra, Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), http://www.w3.org Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560 Sophia-Antipolis - France Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22
Attachments
- application/octet-stream attachment: toolB.owl
- application/octet-stream attachment: report1.rdf
- application/octet-stream attachment: report2.rdf
- application/octet-stream attachment: toolA.owl
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 12:23:56 UTC