10:34:49 RRSAgent has joined #erswad 10:36:05 maxf has joined #erswad 10:37:13 == Specification organisation 10:37:26 hello. This is Giorgio. 10:37:34 people at meeting: Nadia Heninger, Ian Hickson, Liddy Nevile, Nick Kew, 10:38:00 Jim Ley, Wendy Chisholm, Max Froumentin, Nick Gibbins, Dan Brickley, 10:38:09 Libby Miller, Charles McCathieNevile 10:38:54 NH It is not always clear which parts of EARL are really important information and which are supplementary. 10:39:06 WC tried to shuffle this a bit in the new draft. 10:39:37 ACTION: NH try to re-order the spec to be clearer about the role of different pieces 10:39:49 ==discussed this morning: 10:40:30 1. Building a corpus of EARL data to run tests against. We need to have different tools producing similar types of results (agreed to use accessibility testing) against similar and different material. 10:41:00 Plan to use at least Page Valet (automatic) and MUTAT (manual) and AccVerify to generate results 10:54:16 remote people, we're going to lunch and we'll be back in 1.5 hours. 12:17:04 wendy has joined #erswad 12:17:06 maxf has joined #erswad 12:17:22 nadia has joined #erswad 12:17:37 libby has joined #erswad 12:19:11 nmg has joined #erswad 12:20:25 chaalsXXX has joined #erswad 12:21:37 can you read me? 12:28:25 Giorgio has joined #erswad 12:32:23 Zakim has joined #erswad 12:41:38 giorgio, calling you for number... 12:42:29 agenda+ xpointer, location 12:42:55 +39 0432 57 53 82 /whois sbp 12:42:59 agenda+ cleaning up the schema (daml+oil needed? owl instead of daml+oil) 12:43:08 agenda+ extensions and interoperability 12:43:26 sbp are you here? 12:43:33 yep 12:45:28 howdy ho, folks 12:45:32 do you want us to call you? near a phone? 12:45:33 sean, do you want to be on the phone? 12:46:03 Wendy said we should ahve a 90 minute lunch 12:46:18 yes 12:46:19 i 12:46:20 did 12:46:21 :) 12:46:36 what's the phone set up there? is anybody else participating by phone? 12:46:42 Giorgio 12:47:14 my phone is: 12:47:15 how is he finding it? 12:47:23 oh, hi there 12:47:30 we haven't connected to him yet. 12:47:33 +39 0432 575382 12:48:53 if you can't get a phone connection, we could do it over irc. 12:49:53 we have a phone connection but wendy is trying to get a bridge so both you and sbp can call 12:50:42 ok, calling giorgio: chaals is minuting to irc for sbp 12:50:53 cheers 12:51:36 if we get a brifdge we can change that 12:52:12 I think that I prefer IRC anyway :-) 12:52:34 NK - conversation model. 12:52:59 3 players, producer (valet), database, consumer (another program) 12:53:15 consumer needs to know what producer is talking about 12:53:29 ways to identify what's being talked about: 12:53:35 Domain - base level 12:53:46 URI (has no focus) 12:54:01 Xpointer or HTTP metadata (but both of these have problems) 12:54:14 xpointer probs: tends to be overcomplicated. 12:54:41 doesn't apply to HTML - only works for XML 12:54:53 doesn't cope with content negotiation 12:55:07 not robust against changes 12:56:11 CMN if you pretty-format the source line-character references will die, and Xpointers will survive unless they rely on string ranges. 12:56:25 NK Right, we are looking for something more robust. 12:56:39 we see this with annotea deling with orphaned annotations. 12:57:58 DP If I parse an XML document and generate an ID on a node 12:58:11 ...the requirements of Xpath state that it will be the same if it is the same document 12:58:34 who's DP? 12:58:49 ... you could formulate xpath without generating IDs, but all implementations today will give the same value for same node if the document has not changed (based on node position within the tree) 12:58:53 dave pawson 12:58:55 Dave pawson 12:59:43 JL If you insert an element above the generated ID will change - you can't tell that your pointer is pointing to something different 12:59:53 DP the pointer will idenitfy that it is new 13:00:04 NK right, but if the paragraph is still there we don't want to lose it. 13:00:15 JL there are lots of ways of finding out if the node has changed. 13:01:02 NK if you have two paragraphs and sdwitch them then the nodes point to something that seems right, but is a different paragraph. We want to be able to identify that. 13:01:17 JL because that's what people do - change the order of a couple of paragraphs, or bullet points... 13:02:48 NK So we figured that you could normalise HTML and then make an Xpointer, and we offered the idea to the HTML WG who didn't want it. 13:03:06 We can normalise, so why not? Which means the problem becomes how normalisation is defined 13:03:21 (traactor noise drowning us out briefly) 13:03:56 we could define a program as the normalisation, but we could make a Web service that does the normalisation, and use its URI as the reference. 13:03:58 you can have some kind of super-normalization property, and then define a subProperty of it for each specific normalization algorithm 13:04:29 NK Sean is coming from a formal point of view 13:04:36 q+ 13:04:53 NK Sean, are you thinking of coming up with a description in RDF? 13:05:26 DB Sean says that in RDF you can say that there are normalisations, and be more precise about which kind of normalisation you use. 13:05:30 yeah, I'm just thinking from the model POV. I don't think we can force people to use one set normalization algorithm, can we? 13:05:51 yeah 13:06:29 CMN how do we deal with someone who uses a better algorithm? 13:06:39 NK we say "you have to provide a service that does it" 13:06:59 cmn practial problem, 2 diff normalizers do it 2 diff ways. 13:07:31 cmn offer diff error mechanisms. could chain them, each link improving it, but changing the normalizations. 13:07:42 nk the html pointer+link to spec of what used to get it. 13:08:10 q+ 13:08:30 NG we haven't dealt with normalising document -we have been dealing with negotiated documents 13:08:43 ...so we have added statements about what the HTTP information sent includes 13:09:32 ack ChaalsBRS 13:09:42 People do conneg on all kinds of things server side, so you get different documents back sort of at random. 13:10:02 NK capturing those is one option 13:10:13 q+ 13:10:55 ericP has joined #erswad 13:11:09 wendy says we have a bridge... 13:11:11 danb_lap has joined #erswad 13:11:29 bridge: zakim, passcode 92479 13:11:34 NG We have assumed that poepple will do the conneg based on what the client sends... 13:11:59 JL there are problems that can complicate life. 13:12:10 wendy, should i join the bridge? 13:12:28 well, so far we are using IRC. 13:12:42 i understand it's for only 3 people 13:12:43 orger 13:12:58 eric, you are welcome to join. i don't think sbp will join. 13:13:21 hmmm. giorgio might not either. 13:13:21 ok, we can fight over it 13:13:22 giorgio is going to go just on IRC... 13:13:29 should we call you? 13:13:38 i guess it's hard to hear. 13:13:39 bye giorgio 13:13:46 I'm here 13:13:57 q+ 13:14:04 q+ 13:15:05 NK: We have looked at HTML pointer, and at HTTP headers. 13:15:24 These are straightforwad things to do. 13:16:09 NK so if toolA annotates one version of a page, and toolB user has a different set of preferences they are not going to get the same information. 13:16:59 FWIW, I've posted my (personal/rough/etc) notes from this morning: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-er-ig/2002Jun/0036.html 13:17:47 CMN so you could use a normalisation that was just whatever tool X does to the source, and then a line/character reference 13:17:57 giorgio? you're on the q - question? 13:18:03 why don't we frame 13:18:04 NK right. Not stable over changes to the content... 13:18:12 ack chaalsBRS 13:18:15 frame? 13:18:16 ack giorgio 13:18:21 the whole discussion of EARL within the context 13:18:40 of a service that allows end users to cpmare different evaluations? 13:18:47 I meant compare 13:18:58 q+ 13:19:07 so a user would be able to see how a page changes over time 13:19:21 zakim, list conferences 13:19:22 I see WAI_ERTWG(SW f2f)9:00AM 13:19:23 or how a page is evaluated by toolA and tool B using the same guideline. 13:19:31 zakim, this is WAI_ERTWG 13:19:33 ok, danb_lap 13:19:39 zakim, who is here? 13:19:39 over 13:19:40 On the phone I see EricP, ??P1 13:19:41 On IRC I see danb_lap, ericP, Zakim, Giorgio, chaalsBRS, nmg, libby, nadia, maxf, wendy, RRSAgent, sbp 13:19:54 zakim, ??P1 is BristolF2F 13:19:55 +BristolF2F; got it 13:20:48 zakim, BristolF2F holds libby, davep, nick_k, chaals, ian, nadia, liddy, nick_g, max, jim, wendy, danbri 13:20:49 +Libby, Davep, Nick_k, Chaals, Ian, Nadia, Liddy, Nick_g, Max, Jim, Wendy, Danbri; got it 13:21:48 yes, phone is hard to hear. that's why giorgio decided not to use it (is only on irc). 13:22:03 DP At day 0 you have a node with a given generateID. You record string_length... 13:22:31 DP at day3 if you don't get the same generateID and don't get the same string_length, you could find out if the string has been moved to somewhere else 13:22:43 NK that's something I am going to talk about in a minute 13:23:07 cmn we do consider earl in context of comparing results. 13:23:35 nk next part is markup measure. 13:23:41 NK Markup measures - change detection. 13:24:08 nk http metadata (last modified, content neg, e-tag, md5) 13:24:14 nk then tell if doc is the same. 13:24:14 ooo, this sound like something i want to hear 13:24:16 BUT 13:24:24 these are whole document measures. 13:24:44 ..why not take the same measures of factored out subdocument. 13:25:04 .. if metadata says this doc has struct of h1->h2->...headings, and what between them (isn't relevant to the assertion) 13:25:12 .. md5 on doc, similar hash on just headers. 13:26:04 .. last autumn, we talked about it and i created a demo. it detected, through a variety of hashes, could tell if changes were significant to whole doc or just headings. 13:26:33 .. demoed w/cnn could see that some hashes changed each time content changed, but hashes on headers (i.e. structure) remained the sam.e 13:26:50 .. since then we've decided to make this useful to more devs and the dom might be better rep to work from. 13:26:56 .. we can take what want and ignore the rest. 13:27:06 .. e.g. pcdata of a node - take a hash - same idea. 13:27:45 .. can tell if banner has changed and thus that accessibilty not effected. 13:28:00 dp trust: if i make an assertion on that doc, and "that" = measures a,b,c,d...someone else says 13:28:06 .. it's not that doc it's that w/some changes. 13:28:17 .. need trust to say "i took out pieces." will need to be very clear. 13:28:30 nk we need to say exactly how the assertion was processed. 13:28:52 .. we measured these bits but not those. come up with an equivalence class. as far as the metadat concerns. 13:29:21 jl most eval wll stand up if text changes. although doesn't work for "cearl and simple writing" b/c if text changes does change that measure. 13:29:56 nk could just take text nodes, if that has changed then accessibility is likely to have changed...or just p and headings...not blockquote or address which are not likely to change. 13:30:11 jl if just add emphasis, clear and simple still stands up (content not likely to change) 13:30:19 dp missed 13:30:25 nk why do you need human trust there? 13:30:31 dp putting a confidence level on something. 13:30:41 .. if adverts changed, it's not the same doc. 13:30:55 jl if trusting doc can trust these elements. 13:31:29 nk the kinds of things we use to measure: when are changes signivicant, when docs are equiv, whether subsection is shared between more than one. 13:31:44 .. e.g. if an element is a toolbar we should be able to find that element in more than one page. 13:32:00 .. we can measure that perhaps by hashing content. 13:32:42 .. is subsection changed, or everything outside subsction changed. 13:33:05 .. when looking for robust pointers, take into account content neg and doc change. 13:33:19 .. doc summary of doc change: 13:33:29 1. decide what is significant and reduce doc to it 13:33:32 2. has what you have 13:33:56 3. save triple: xpointer+hash+spec for how got the hash (could be a web service) 13:34:21 .. once valey generates, fillyjonk can look at. 13:34:36 .. pointer, details of content neg, hash, reduction spec, and can reconstruct the request. 13:34:54 .. retrieve the doc. compute hash on pointer and tell whether pointer is still valid or not. 13:35:09 .. if not valid, look to other elements that the pointer points to to see if have same hash 13:35:48 .. last bit beyond what we have implemented. but can based on what we have done. 13:35:56 WAC have you imlemented that - how common a requirement is it in practise? 13:36:20 WAC you are sharing pointers now? 13:36:41 NK pointer, hash, spec, HTTP details 13:36:56 ... haven't implemented it, did proof of concept for html pointer and hashing 13:37:05 ... with hashing the annozilla guy has done it too. 13:37:17 WAC didn't know you are hashing elements 13:37:26 NK we are hashing at whatever point we are interested. 13:37:58 ...a node and children, a node and some children, etc. 13:38:04 WAC how do you decide what to hash? 13:38:22 NK test decides what it needs and hashes that. 13:38:35 ... wich is recorded in the data we are then sharing 13:39:05 WAC where does nortmalisation happen? 13:39:13 dp sounds reasonably complex, is it worth it? 13:39:22 NK that is at the first place to get a DOm to make pointers into 13:39:33 jl try to evaluate almost anything, you will fail b/c doc changes everytime you evaluate it. 13:39:41 nk worked out through a bit of trial and error. 13:40:18 NK what I am talking about here is where we are at in terms of reverse engineering our stuff into something formal 13:40:26 WAC intersted in feedback... 13:40:47 WAC They didn't want this in HTML? 13:41:03 NK We proposed a canonicall normalisation, but they didn't want to touch that. 13:41:29 ... this is a new proposal that can allow the use of whatever normalisation someone wants, plus how to repeat that. 13:41:32 WAC 3 questions. 13:41:43 1. Reactions from people? 13:41:55 2. Seems like we need to be proposing this to someone, but who? 13:42:02 NK In principle anyone talking about markup 13:42:08 WAC yes, but it needs to be blessed... 13:42:12 q+ 13:42:45 cmn how much does this need to be blessed? not sure. don't think so. it's useful. it's a huge need for EARL. 13:43:04 .. needs to do html, not just xml. not situation for people developing xpath. 13:43:11 nk they might be itnerested in similarity measures. 13:43:16 jl i don't think it's sufficient as it is. 13:43:22 .. doesn't survive doc change. 13:43:30 cmn we can bless it if we find it useful. 13:43:41 . we're not reinventing someone else's wheel. 13:43:49 .. we're extending their wheels. 13:44:09 WAC where does it go in relation to the EARL spec? 13:44:17 ... we would need some documentation of it. 13:44:19 q+ 13:44:27 NK I can hack that documentation together 13:44:54 ACTION: Nick Kew - write up HTML pointer documentation 13:45:24 cmn make sure it works alongside what people are doing. can we do it with 2 or 3 normalizations. can we map between them? 13:45:47 .. if your tool was integrated into a few comemrcial products, you would have to do more than one. 13:45:51 .. they don't normalize the same way. 13:46:25 .. at the moment they are using line/paragraph pointers. can you work that into the system to retrieve? 13:47:25 dp if you view the normalization as the first part of this interface, it should be viable. 13:47:38 cmn can we map between normalizations. 13:47:48 dp i can choose between diff parsers, 13:47:53 nk similar 13:48:19 dp you dno't care b/c input is normalized doc. 13:48:43 nk mozilla and x normalizes diff. 13:48:57 .. just what found when did it. 13:48:59 the comparisons service should be able to take as input EARL statements, the evaluated resource and store both of them and compute an internally used normalization. 13:48:59 jl not quite. 13:49:22 ack ericp 13:49:41 the service should get from EARL the problem location in the way in which it is computed by the tool. 13:49:58 ep i haven't heard much of what you said, but amaya has the ability to normalize one way 13:50:01 .. tidy does diff. 13:50:12 .. one question we run into is whether something like schema validation 13:50:20 .. was something you want to include in the xpath or not 13:50:40 nk tbody? 13:50:43 ep yes. 13:50:45 nk yes, have to consider. 13:51:03 .. leave that to the normalization, as long as specify can take it either way since can reconstruct. 13:51:26 ep require processing of xpath. 13:51:35 .. missed it (also hard to hear you) 13:52:00 wac acks cmn 13:52:06 wac acks chaalsbrs 13:52:06 a defined mapping to a well-formed XML document is all you need for XPath 13:52:10 wac acks chaalsBRS 13:52:22 s/acks/ack/ 13:52:25 I think 13:52:30 the question is then, why would you want to add a dependency on schema validation 13:52:43 q+ 13:52:49 one answer, some H 13:52:51 response to Giorgio: 13:53:15 XGML-MXML mappers do produce a PSV document 13:53:33 dp wasn't that the comment you (jl) was making? the simple URI is inadequate? 13:53:35 jl nods 13:53:49 dp yes, diff between time 0 and time 1. 13:54:24 nk reads giorgio's comments 13:54:48 cmn how's the tool going to compute what normalization was used 13:54:49 ? 13:55:06 the service should use whatever data the tool provides 13:55:19 giorgio, do you mean that the normalisation used should be stored as part of the data? 13:55:26 no. 13:55:29 nk earl:normalization 13:55:39 the tool should use ,say line numebers 13:56:03 dp store data "this is what i tested" 13:56:05 the service gets this and using some sort of normalization finds where the problem is located 13:56:11 nk it is excessive if doing much of it 13:56:13 dp good alternative 13:56:15 I mean should the earl include a note about what normalisation was used, or that tools should be able to automatically figure out which normalisation was used? 13:56:15 nk not for me 13:56:26 gl have to eval something. it will change. then do you store the new one? 13:56:35 s/gl/jl 13:56:44 jl storing it versus storing a measure of it. 13:56:54 dp if changes one iota retest 13:57:02 jl not usable for many of the use cases. 13:57:06 nk often not necessary 13:57:12 jl human eval expensive to redo. 13:57:22 .. don't want to invalidate just b/c one date changes. 13:57:37 I don't see that tools are going to be able to calcualte automatically the normalisation used by a different tool, unless it is specified and there is potenitally a service to show what that mapping is. 13:58:07 agreed. you have to note the normalization 13:58:24 unless you point to an archive of the normalized result 13:58:28 cmn still trying to understand what giorgio's saying. 13:59:09 .. to reuse that info (the earlier evaluation) and check later. you have to reproduce that normalization 13:59:13 My point is that it is far easier to make tool vendor to provide EARL statements with things like line number, offsets, DOM index 13:59:15 ..in order to find where that thing was. 13:59:21 .. and know what the original normalization. 13:59:29 .. rather than to agree to adopt a specific normalization. 13:59:34 .. then require in earl, carry problem, location of problem, part of location, what normalization is used. 13:59:51 .. That said, we need to work on the interface of a service that accepts this data and 14:00:18 I agree that we shouldn't require a particular normalisation - they can just specify whatever they do already. 14:00:24 .. somehow integrates it into the internally used normalized version of the document being tested. 14:00:53 <+q>the thing is, we can't require that people say what normalization was used: we can require that they note that *some* normalization was used, and recommend strongly that the ydocument it,a nd perhaps provide the hash and an archive link to the normalized output or whatever 14:00:55 nk you can look at line and column, what i'm saying is that we can do more useful things than that. 14:01:24 q+ 14:01:41 jl why can't we require them to provide which normalization was used? 14:01:46 .. even if private, they can say which was used. 14:01:55 nk they would have to share if they want it to be useful to a 3rd party. 14:01:55 i was going to ask that too 14:02:28 cmn rereads end of giorio's last comment 14:02:35 cmn take data from another tool... 14:02:42 nk each dev needs to specify what doing. 14:02:53 in reply to JL: well, what information are we going to say that we should require? a link to the source code of the normalization algorithm? an RDF representation of that algorithm? the name for the algorithm? the human-readable documentation for it? 14:03:06 just an identifier 14:03:23 people agree - just an identifier. 14:03:26 nk it could be any 14:03:26 agree with ericP 14:03:28 jl hopefully all 14:03:29 i invent an alghorythm and maybe i document it 14:03:34 right, hence that "we can require that they note that *some* normalization was used" 14:03:52 someone happens to re-implement that algorythm so they use the same identifier 14:03:58 jl they need to give a ref to the normalization, so can compare...if two people use same tool we can compare. 14:04:27 normalization = html parser? 14:04:41 Have you folks looked at the work XML signature etc are doing?: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#sec-o-Simple 14:04:45 a typical example. 14:04:46 nl typically (yes giorgio) 14:04:48 you can't require that nodes be identified by URIS in RDF, though. that's my point. peopel can use bNodes 14:04:57 Another normalisation is to run through tidy... 14:05:01 if people have to invent an identifier when inventing an algorythm, we get some opportunity for interop 14:05:19 we can get some false negatives, but no false positives 14:05:46 danbri: Look at ripping off the work of XML signature - they have been down this path. (See URI above) 14:05:50 also, once some become more popular, we have progressively better interop 14:05:53 action wendy take latest back to reagle for discussion 14:05:57 note to self: use this as an argument for deprecating bNodes on rdfig 14:05:59 ACTION: Wendy - investigate XML signature technique 14:06:49 sbp, what's your take on my argument? 14:07:03 q? 14:07:33 ack ChaalsBRS 14:07:43 cmn sbp says we can't require that nodes have uris 14:07:45 my take is that you can't require people to use a URI as identifier in RDF, although perhaps danbri has some thoughts on that? 14:07:51 Sean, if we are specifying the RDF to be used for identifying the nodes why can't we require that they be a particular kind of thing (e.g. URI) 14:08:04 danbri - it's your data format, if you want uris there 14:08:09 nk seems an obvious mechanism 14:08:16 how do you say that in the schema? 14:08:18 q+ 14:08:20 sbp, not at a model level, but it can be a requirement at a higher level application level 14:08:25 the symbol is independent of the thing that it denotes 14:08:30 application level: oh. ugh 14:08:47 chair: Break time. 14:08:57 this isn't the sort of thing an rdf schema would express. But its the sort of thing the EARL spec might dictate. 14:09:10 agenda? 14:09:10 if you don't have any app-level specification, you have no earl spec 14:09:14 WAC where do we go from here on this topic? 14:09:43 I see 3 action items: 14:09:43 ACTION: NH try to re-order the spec to be clearer about the role of different pieces [1] 14:09:43 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-erswad-irc#T10-39-37 14:09:43 ACTION: Nick Kew - write up HTML pointer documentation [2] 14:09:43 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-erswad-irc#T13-44-54 14:09:43 ACTION: Wendy - investigate XML signature technique [3] 14:09:43 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-erswad-irc#T14-05-59 14:10:49 20 minute break. Back at 3.30 local time to talk about cleaning up the schema. 14:11:19 -BristolF2F 14:12:08 -EricP 14:12:09 WAI_ERTWG(SW f2f)9:00AM has ended 14:21:52 [chuckle]: "(not yet a) W3C Working Draft" 14:23:08 :) you like that eh, sbp? 14:23:19 we'll pull that off once we go to tr. 14:23:34 very much so. TimBL and DanC were moaning about people publishing pseudo-WDs very recently on #rdfig 14:24:14 nadia: actually, TestCase is *not* the range of object; it's restricted to that when used on an earl:Assertion. the distinction between using range/domain and using DAML restrictions is something that shouldn't be missed 14:25:44 missed out in the specification, that is... dunno how best to represent it in that table 14:30:03 sean: have you looked at my reorganization that i just sent? 14:30:21 i'm not sure what you mean by what you said 14:30:28 yep, that's what I was commenting on 14:30:39 well... the range of rdf:subject is not earl:TestCase 14:30:51 otherwise reficiation would be pretty useless to 99% of the world :-) 14:30:57 I refer to the table in section... um... 14:31:06 "4. Properties of Classes" 14:31:07 ericP? 14:31:09 wendy did that 14:31:23 do you want to dial in again? 14:31:36 look at sections 2 (missing the number) and 3 14:31:59 i wanted to replace the "properties" and "classes" sections with something that's a bit clearer on the actual structure 14:32:21 oops - yes, i see my error. what i was trying to say is that on an earl:assertion, the object is limited to earl:TestCase. 14:32:52 s/object/subject 14:33:04 all i did was organize properties by their domain, and the minor classes by the property they were associated with 14:33:05 right, sorry... I thought that was one of nadia's amendments 14:33:26 in the earl world, the range of object is TestCase, no? 14:34:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jun/att-0031/01-21-earl.html for those who can't find the message 14:34:23 just playing around w/representing the data in various forms to make the schema easier to understand. 14:35:37 section: earl as rdf 14:36:09 title of doc: version 1.0 spec 14:37:55 the range of object is not TestCase, and it'd be confusing to say otherwise. I'm not sure how to put it clearly, but object has a DAML restriction on it such that the values that it can take when used on earl:Assertion are limited to instances of earl:TestCase 14:38:07 giorgio, sbp, eric? which of you wants to be on the phone for the next session? 14:38:20 we'll be talking about cleaning up the schema. danbri has posted a proposal. 14:38:47 um, wendy's tables are really useful as a quick reference 14:38:50 I have to admit that I _don't_ know the current EARL schema very well. So I resolved to keep my mouth shut rather than bluff. 14:38:57 yep, agreed 14:39:08 perhaps you could say "earl suggests TestCase" in the tables 14:39:22 (um, agreed that they're a very useful reference, that is) 14:40:06 if we went with DanBri's proposed line, this would no longer be a problem 14:40:16 since we wouldn't be using restrictions there at all 14:41:17 documentation for DAML restrictions: http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru#restrictions 14:41:43 especially:- 14:41:44 [[[ 14:41:45 Note: When restricting the range of a property, as we are doing here, there is an important difference between using a toClass restriction and using rdfs:range (as we did for the hasFather property). An rdfs:range element has a global scope: any use of the hasFather property for any class must always yield a male. A toClass restriction (as used in the Person class) on the other hand has a local scope: the parent of a person must be person, but the parent of any oth 14:41:46 ]]] 14:42:14 hork, how much of that came through? 14:42:24 i saw it. 14:42:48 sbp - any reactions to danbri's suggestion? 14:42:52 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jun/0029.html 14:43:10 yep, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jun/0032 14:43:11 (re daml etc -- Is this w.r.t. context-specific range/domain constraints? I think we can probably worry about that elsewhere.) 14:43:11 sbp - i think the object/testcase range issue is just typographical. error on my part. i don't need convincing. 14:44:03 well, the use of restrictions will be confusing for people that haven't come across them before 14:44:10 so we might want to link off to the above or something 14:44:28 it is minor 14:47:05 sean, what do you reckon to separating the DAML+OIL/WebOnt claims out into a separate doc? ie. have a simple vanilla RDF Schema to describe EARL, with richer description(s) separately. 14:48:05 agreed with nmg 14:48:06 I find the daml+oil stuff unreadable, but I like idea of trying to use D+O/WebOnt... 14:48:38 especially since the documentation parts are now being auto-extracted to the specification 14:48:44 one doc could describe basic classes, properties, and seeAlso to fancier stuff. nmg/sbp, do you have an example of something that wouldn't partition? 14:48:55 weeeell, owl should help on the readability front, when it arrives. 14:49:05 I mean, you don't have to have the D+O stuff in the specification, as long as the schema is normative 14:49:29 I don't expect OWL to be much different in the readability stakes from D+O 14:51:03 (discussion of role of DAML+OIL vs WeBont, using external specs in w3 docs etc) 14:51:19 nmg raises question about dependance of w3c specs on specs from external orgs. 14:51:34 like daml+oil - not actually backed by any standards org. 14:51:51 owl as alternative, but not available yet 14:52:13 define a standards org. I've seen recommendations pointing to RFCs; what makes the IETF necessarily more reputable than DARPA? 14:52:37 we could use the copy of the DAML+OIL schema that's in the W3C datespace 14:52:42 danbri: Concern about too much reliance on webont, however I'm keen to see this WG sanity check WebOnt/OWL work. 14:52:47 DARPA isn't the standards org - the Joint Committee is the closest to such 14:53:01 see also my review of webont requirements doc, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2002Apr/0004.html 14:53:41 as I say, a W3C note was published detailing the D+O schema. however, using that would mean breaking implementations which recognize the daml.org URI-refs 14:54:14 maxf: owl redefines (is inspired by? - nmg) daml+oil - doesn't make normative references to daml+oil 14:54:16 moreover, the Semantic Web wouldn't get very far if people were afriad of using terms outside of the W3C 14:54:21 How many EARL implementations use the DAML+OIL aspects of the schema? In practical terms, what will we break? 14:54:49 well, a lot of my early schema munging used daml.org terms, but admittedly not allt hat much 14:55:20 but I'm still vehemently against it on grounds that it's rather anti-Semantic-Web-philosophy 14:55:33 danbri: I'd rather see this WG use a DTD and XML Schema to describe EARL 'file format', RDFS to describe the modelling constructs, and (separately) use WebOnt/OWL for fancier constraints. 14:56:18 nmg: difference between using terms defined outside the W3C (foaf, rss, etc) and languages defined outside (daml+oil) 14:56:26 you mean use a canonical subset of XML RDF? 14:56:38 how would people add their own extensions, which Nick et al. have already done? via. some m12n mechanism? 14:57:14 much as per rss 1.0 14:57:23 um... I don't agree with that at all 14:57:55 DAML+OIL is in every way as stable as those languages in my opinion, and perhaps more so than FOAF. just because it's more complex doesn't mean that it doesn't get maintained 14:58:30 my point is more that it stands to be superceded by OWL 14:58:50 so we have to wait for Godot before we can go to NOTE/Rec? 14:58:51 imho, i don't think the problem is that daml+oil might be unstable, i think just that it's unnecessary and confusing in the schema itself 14:59:14 ie you'd have an XML-based 'file format', with particular portions of the XML syntax allowing other namespaces. 14:59:27 nadia, i bet putting the rdfs stuff at the top would help 14:59:32 danbri: then you couldn't have a DTD/XML schema for it 14:59:36 it would give folks a lay of the land 14:59:50 sbp, I'm on the DAML+OIL committee. I don't see it being maintained. The DAML+OIL baton was passed to WebOnt WG. 14:59:59 sbp: yes you could. 14:59:59 sbp, when i last looked, the daml schema schema didn't use Disjoints for validation 15:00:48 danbri: would you be willing to produce the DTD/XML schema for EARL, then? I'm pretty sure that even in ANY, you have to decalre the elements being used 15:01:09 A schematron schema, perhaps... 15:01:10 as I found out when I tried to modularize RDF into HTML 15:01:23 but schematron is not endorsed by the W3C! 15:01:27 it would be feasible to write a DTD/XML schema/relaxNG schema to validate a particular form of an earl document. 15:01:40 yep 15:01:54 it wouldn't be validate all the RDF isomorphisms of an instance of that document 15:02:05 nor extensions 15:02:08 that'd be ok. It'd be a syntactic profile of RDF> 15:02:09 . 15:02:18 You could do it in prose, even. 15:02:21 it also wouldn't permit extensibility except in ways that the schema designer expected and designed for 15:02:22 it's the extensions that I'm worried about 15:02:34 group wonders whether to talk about other aspects of the schema 15:02:51 so then you get into the general problem of expressing constraints for an extensible object 15:02:59 nmg brings up an issue about subclassing rdf:property 15:03:14 this is what description logic is good for 15:03:15 eric: well, XHTML m12n is the model to look at 15:03:21 ...which will confuse fancy inference engines 15:03:34 eric: i.e. the best precedent amongst W3C recommendations 15:04:03 ...you separate out the ontology from the ontology langauge - not using rdf:propertyu breaks this divide 15:04:16 miscalculation 15:04:17 modularization 15:04:20 wendy: what is the benfit of creating subclasss of property 15:04:20 ? 15:04:21 lol 15:04:21 modularization 15:04:26 i'll bet it's that one 15:04:35 maybe multiplication 15:04:37 sbp? what d'you reckon? 15:04:52 wendy - maybe from a OO point of view 15:04:55 subClassOf Property where? 15:05:02 ResultProperty 15:05:02 what are we referring to? 15:05:04 nmg - subclassing is deemed ok... 15:05:05 cheers 15:05:54 sbp, do you have a specific proposal derivative of XHTML miscalculation or a hunch that that's the way to go? 15:05:56 well the range of rdf:predicate is rdf:Property, so I didn't have much of a choice :-) 15:06:15 libby says her stuff can't deal with subproperties 15:06:51 eric: it's mainly a hunch that that would be the direction to take if we started producing XML schemata for EARL, but I'm not sure how much value that approach has anyway 15:07:04 danbri: I'm worried that EARL's use of RDF falls between two worlds. It does some stuff that Description Logic (DAML+OIL etc) reasoners will likely barf on. And things like having subclasses of property mean simple triple stores can get confused too. 15:07:17 libby: so if we got rid of rdf reification the subclassing propeerrty would go too? 15:07:44 it'd be O.K. to infer out some triples, e.g. stating that earl:fails a rdf:Property 15:08:04 nmg offers to go away and write a review of the schema - at the moment the rationale is ratther spare so outsiders find it difficult to underxstand who certain decisions were made 15:08:07 you can run http://infomesh.net/2001/05/rdflint/rules.n3 over it or something (as I have done and posted in the past) 15:08:15 sbp, it seems like sort of a compromise between the overconstraining world of syntactic validation and the, um, very accepting world of DL. 15:08:29 eric: such is EARL :-) 15:08:35 s/it/XHTML multiplication/ 15:08:37 DL world isn't very accepting! 15:08:52 BTW, a schematron schema for RSS, aka a syntactic profile of RDF: http://www.ldodds.com/rss_validator/1.0/ 15:08:57 it's about balancing constraints on the model with constraints on the syntax 15:09:01 lookign at earl 1 schema .rdf 15:09:17 danbri, it's had to validate much with DL, or at least with DAML+OIL 15:09:26 [missing some discussion] 15:09:49 nmg giving example of possible confusiogn with no rationale 15:09:57 nmg mentioning that stuff appear to be not useful in the schema 15:10:01 ...useage examples... 15:10:11 like validity property 15:10:12 wendy: asking those questions is very useful 15:10:18 nmg agrees to do this 15:10:32 action nmg write up list of questions about schema 15:11:06 wendy starts to list issues: 15:11:15 simpler - getting rid of reification... 15:11:20 I'd like to see a plain RDF Schema version of the EARL schema, not least so we can compare it with an OWL/WebOnt-enriched version. 15:11:28 ...subclasses of rdf:property 15:11:57 danbri would like to know what tools in practice expect of an earl document 15:12:05 DB: What do tools expect of an EARL document? 15:12:19 ...e.g. you expect some assertions in a pacrticular document 15:12:28 ...rdfs daml etc don;t do this per doc 15:12:43 [this sound like xsd type thing to me...] 15:12:59 I've always thought of an EARL document as being an RDF document that has at least one instance of earl:Evaluation asserted inside it, and then some extra explanatory garbage 15:13:14 But which is useful for? 15:13:26 JL It depends on what kind of evaluation you are making and what you are doing? 15:14:11 danbri: rdfs schema doesnt tell you what to do when you get a document 15:14:15 well, I think you're always going to need the evaluation part, otherwise it'd just be ARL. but as to how much of the context information etc. that you need, that is up to the application 15:14:37 danbri/jim - steriotypical examoples would be/are good 15:14:42 wendy: doing this for each usecase 15:14:54 jim: an xmlsschema would be good 15:15:01 we need more usecase examples actually worked through 15:15:48 dp wrote an xml dtd. will send to list to see how well it matches w/rdf. 15:16:01 ACTION: Charles look over the use cases and see what features they need to use. 15:16:03 lm what if it looked more like [shows dp danbri's proposal sent during break] 15:17:00 ACTION: nmg write up list of questions about schema 15:17:51 libby: rss excample - both a dtd and an rdf schjema 15:17:59 danbri: rss spec has an exampel at the top 15:18:29 dp: need something simple, like dp's DTD, then transform to rdfs 15:18:41 dp: any decision made about N3/XML? 15:18:43 right, but a lot of problems have been caused by RSS's little syntactic constraints 15:18:57 wendy:xml; sbp uses N3 and converts it 15:19:05 in particular? 15:19:09 sbp? 15:19:12 I see 5 action items: 15:19:12 ACTION: NH try to re-order the spec to be clearer about the role of different pieces [1] 15:19:12 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-erswad-irc#T10-39-37 15:19:12 ACTION: Nick Kew - write up HTML pointer documentation [2] 15:19:12 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-erswad-irc#T13-44-54 15:19:12 ACTION: Wendy - investigate XML signature technique [3] 15:19:12 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-erswad-irc#T14-05-59 15:19:12 ACTION: Charles look over the use cases and see what features they need to use. [4] 15:19:12 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-erswad-irc#T15-16-01 15:19:12 ACTION: nmg write up list of questions about schema [5] 15:19:12 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-erswad-irc#T15-17-00 15:19:14 urls at all? 15:19:32 agenda? 15:21:23 check out the "RSS 1.0 conformance tests" thread 15:21:25 grooup wonders whether to ajourn 15:21:45 [[[ 15:21:46 I've seen the entire range of RSS compliance factors and it's a grim sight. 15:21:46 Very little beyond the core set is implemented. And even within a core set the 15:21:46 compliance has been weak. 15:21:48 ]]] - Bill Kearney 15:22:01 danbri talks about splitting the earl spec 15:22:17 compliance factors? 15:22:30 rereading Giorgio's mail - 15:22:30 Bob Bobbington 15:22:39 danbri: modularised version of earl? sam ebucket currently 15:22:41 nadia agrees 15:22:54 chaalsXXX has joined #erswad 15:22:54 danbri: some stuff seems core, architectural, structural; other bits are useful/handy/nifty properties useful for real world EARL apps 15:23:26 yeah. classifying the lot is surprisingly difficult, though 15:23:31 nadia: I'm in favour of cleaning up the schema. Folk aren't using the d+o stuff, and there are a bunch of properties being neglected; others that should be there but aren't. 15:23:45 wendy: looks like we will reqwrite the schema 15:23:59 sbp, wendy is asking if you agree split schema? 15:24:05 sbp are you in favor of splitting it into 2, ala nadia's proposal (from a while back) 15:24:08 s/but aren't/but have to be infered/ 15:24:25 sbp, RSS has had troubles that weren't technical in origin 15:24:33 aah. Sorry about that before 15:24:51 rereading Giorgio's email - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-er-ig/2002Jun/0035.html 15:25:05 http://hkn.berkeley.edu/~nadiah/blah.xml 15:25:32 heh, cool: http://ian.hixie.ch/#the-person 15:26:41 any reason why we can't have earl:asserts and earl:assertedBy and let people choose either? 15:26:57 might make queries a touch trickier 15:26:57 it'll make parsing unknown earl reports more difficult 15:27:05 wendy talks about things to discuss tomorrow 15:27:10 er what libby said 15:27:12 - rdf database requirements 15:27:33 - intereoperable extensions - hytime examples 15:27:36 Suggestion that the location of a problemidentify a normalisation that people can replicate. I guess that is the thing of whether tools will implement a normalisation just for the sake of EARL 15:27:42 - tomorrow we can play! 15:27:54 are the cats out? 15:28:26 cats? 15:28:46 wendy would like to generate earl for the usercases that we don;t have earl for already 15:29:00 "when the cats are out, the mice shall play" 15:29:02 (or somethingorother) 15:29:05 dp: is not sure could put the test requirements in earl, but certainly the test specification 15:29:10 ah... 15:29:19 the cats are off to the pub... 15:29:22 sbp, we're wrapping up. Any final thoughts...? 15:29:23 heh, heh 15:29:45 nah. I'll just rant via. email if I see fit 15:29:50 :) 15:29:53 ok, take care 15:29:57 cheers, you too 15:30:00 have fun at the pub :-) 15:30:27 ADJOURNED 15:30:36 thanks sbp :) 15:30:44 RRSAgent, pointer? 15:30:44 See http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-erswad-irc#T15-30-44 15:43:16 bye folks