30 Aug 2006


See also: IRC log


Shadi, Johannes, CarlosI, CarlosV, Jim, Chris, Charles


Pending decisions on EARL 1.0 Schema

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Jul/0032

SAZ: Testable Statement - testcase and requirement had some discussio
... Looked at maximum cardinality to be added later
... Some question if we really need it, and we need a Test case description language really
... If no new objections like to take it forward

JK: Okay

CV: Okay

CI: Some concerns over Cardinality already sent by email
... reduces interopability if you can't compare testcases and requirements

SAZ: Main issue is missing TCDL which limits the interopability to say things are the same - we can get by without that and even in the worst case you can still work with the general superclass of testablestatement
... We hope people would be more consistent and a TCDL will arrive in the future

CI: Could we force some interop by requiring a Requirement always?
... It's more difficult to agree on testcases, especially if they are not public

SAZ: There is an ambiguity if you have testcase and requirement in same assertion - where does it apply to?
... If we have to create logic to resolve that then we create TCDL.

CI: I don't see why we need any resolution

SAZ: If you have testcase "Is ALT?" and requirement "WCAG 1" what does it mean has been passed or failed?

JK: Even more complicated if you have multiple testcases.

SAZ: We resolved to have just one testable statement per result, so you'd have seperate test statements for each test and requirement

CI: I see the problem, but I think the current proposal suffers the same problem, the requirement failure/pass is really down to the tests.

JK: There is no 1-1 relationship between requirements and testcases so you may need 2 testcases to fulfil a requirement
... Subject passes testcase 1, subject fails testcase 2, subject fails Requirement X
... The test heirachy needs to be defined outside currently

SAZ: Need to remember the TCDL is needed
... Modularisation is a good approach
... This isn't last chance
... Any objections at putting into next editors draft

RESOLUTION: Take proposal - testable statement subclass into editors draft

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Jul/0045

SAZ: No objections to the proposal yet, I want to do some re-arranging and re-describing
... Any comments?

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Aug/0010.html

SAZ: Want to seperate out byte and char from the Snippet - prefer to have byteSnippet and charSnippet

JL: Seperating makes sense if it's clearer for people

SAZ: Seem to be no Objections

<chaals> [works for me]

<scribe> ACTION: JL reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Aug/0010.html particularly points 1 and 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-er-irc]

RESOLUTION: Incorporate pointers into 1.0 schema

SAZ: Should now have complete schema for next draft

Plan for EARL 1.0 Schema publication

SAZ: We should publish by september, question is LC or not?

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say not last call, given the elapsed time

SAZ: Need to get everyone to look at it really hard check all everything once we get the status, then on the Telcon of the 20th Sept we decide what's up.

CMN: I'd suggest we don't go LC on the first draft after a year
... good if we could get a draft out earlier than Sept, as early as next week even, and then aim to get LC in 6 weeks

SAZ: Are you proposing Mondays version can go out for publication?
... Any concerns?

CMN: To Group on monday, group can review for a week, then take to TR a week later

SAZ: When would deadline be for objections, Friday 8th?

CMN: Friday 8th works for me

SAZ: Will everyone be able to review editors draft next week?
... plan to publish WD for 8th or so, then continue review to prepare for LC month later or so

CMN: More like 6 to 8 weeks maybe

SAZ: Also need to look at EARL Guide

CV: Can hopefully look to do some updates next week

SAZ: JK has sent me an updated HTTP RDF draft which we also need to publish soon
... Preferably publish it as a note as the same time as we publish schema
... No telcon for 2 weeks
... See you all in 3 weeks!!

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: JL reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Aug/0010.html particularly points 1 and 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-er-irc]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/08/30 14:51:38 $