See also: IRC log
<drooks> shadi: reviews previous uri in rdf discussions. Carlos proposed URI in RDF.
saz: should rdf describe the various parts of uri?
<JohannesK> in <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20060508> it's property uri
cv: duplication of uri property in HTTP and EARL rdf
saz: is that a problem?
... define somewhere, reuse?
nk: Isn't the URI term available in some existing rdf ?
saz: really talking about Location, which extends URI
<shadi> <http:request><http:requestURI>...</http:requestURI></http:request>
<JohannesK> <earl:WebContent><http:uri>...</http:uri></earl:WebContent>
<shadi> <earl:locatio>...</earl:location>
nk/saz: should be up to tools whether to record just URi or more detail
<JohannesK> I'm writing
shadi's ears makign noise
<JohannesK> January schema draft says dc:location is property of WebContent class
<JohannesK> I was replacing dc:location with http:uri
jk: <http:uri>
saz: needs to be wrapped in <http:request>
<JohannesK> <earl:WebContent><earl:httpRequest><http:Request><http:uri>...
<JohannesK> Why not <earl:WebContent><http:uri>... ?
<JohannesK> yep
saz: need earl namespace version of uri
... we don't want a whole vocab for URIs
all agree
RESOLUTION: a single URI property suffices
<shadi> ACTION: shadi look at earl:uri and http:uri and align them [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/31-er-irc]
<scribe> ACTION: saz to ensure http:uri and earl:uri are compatible [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/31-er-irc]
saz: testability and testsuite for wcag2 requirements
cr: don't forget other relevant testsuites
saz: yes, but not our concern
cr: extending the testsuite would help understand different guidelines and how they relate
saz: nice, but not our charter
cr; general testduite would be more helpful
cr: OK, our charter is wcag2, but we should try and ensure our testsuite is useful beyond it
<JohannesK> cr: we should create test procedures and send them to WCAG WG
<JohannesK> saz: it's not our task
<JohannesK> ci: just reviewing existing test procedures doesn't sound interesting
<JohannesK> saz: prime task is reviewing existing test procedures and provide feedback
<JohannesK> saz: suggest repairs; ownership must be on WCAG WG
<JohannesK> ci: we as tool developers must have the same view on WCAG to implement them correctly
<JohannesK> saz: we won't edit the techniques doc
<ChrisR> tech submission form: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/
<JohannesK> saz: WCAG WG will incorporate comments from TF into techniques doc; submit new techniques via different channel
<JohannesK> ci: why have these two channels? communication to WCAG WG should be more flexible
<JohannesK> saz: there's not a bottom-up _and_ a top-down approach
<JohannesK> saz: it's just top-down