- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 05:21:28 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Hi Sahdi, all, this is great stuff. I have (more or less in parallel) been working on some stuff to treat this kind of data in cwm (Jena is too easy, since it already has OWL rules implemented :-) You can see my scribbles at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/200407/earl/ (some of the approach there is about dealing with the different flavours of EARL that people have at the moment) and the stuff that deals with this aspect at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/200407/earl/logic - currently it is REALLY messy and there are big gaps in it, but it's at least a holding site where you can look at the ideas, comment, and expect to get some kind of update resulting... One of the things I want to do is write up some clear explanations of exactly what you do to write this yourself. It's really very very straightforward, but it looks daunting because there are lots of terms and URI's there. Some of that can be simplified by the use of entities, and it really is just a matter of cut-and-paste a couple of lines. But I am also concerned that we be able to demonstrate, for at least a couple of platforms, how to implement this, so I am focussing my energy there. (And this is really in my spare spare time :( cheers Chaals On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: >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 > 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, 16 September 2004 09:21:29 UTC