See also: IRC log
saz: publication going online soon, thanks all
for your hard work
... especially Johannes and CarlosV
... publication provoked a lot of interest within W3C groups
... hope to be getting several review comments over the next while
... Johannes will be maintaining an issues list for the WD
RESOLUTION: next ERT WG face-to-face meeting on 22-23 February 2007 in Gijon, Spain
saz: thanks to CTIC for hosting the event
<scribe> ACTION: SAZ get in touch with CI about meeting logistics etc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/20-er-irc]
saz: 24 January 2007 in Boston, USA
... results from this meeting will be made available to ERT WG
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Dec/0097
saz: charter can only be extended for one year
because WAI Technical Activity only chartered until 31 December 2007
... will chop off 2008 and we will revisit the charter in one year
cv: what about adding the WG Notes (HTTP Vocabulary and Pointers) to deliverables?
saz: will check
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Dec/0088
cv: what about earl:result
saz: taken already for TestResult
ci: what about earl:testresult (note the case)
saz: confusing and not sure if RDF is case sensitive
ci: recent use of earl:outcome shows its pretty natural
<JohannesK> 'sensitive' does not appear in RDF Primer, RDF/XML syntax, and RDFS specs
cv: proposal to change earl:result to earl:testresult, and then change earl:validity to earl:result
<CarlosV> actually earl:testResult
jk: seems strange to have earl:testresult and earl:result
brainstorms: value, label, output, rating
RESOLUTION: best option right now seems earl:outcome, will use that unless someone objects
<scribe> ACTION: SAZ send resolution and brainstorm words to the list to get input from the group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/20-er-irc]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Dec/0075
A. drop the idea of warnings in EARL completely
B. adopt a simple literal earl:warning property
C. adopt a more comprehensive earl:Warning class
ci: think we can discard option C, prefer
option A, can see some use cases for option B
... must be careful in describing correct usage to avoid misuse or confusion
... took long for the group itself to come to common understanding
cv: not in favor of adding extra complexity, not sure about the difference between adding a property and a new validity (outcome) level
saz: additional information such as in the LONGDESC example, it could be a sub-property of dc:description as proposed by Charles
jk: see use cases for option B, so vote for option B
cv: can live with option B but with a different name than "warning". for example "information" or so
RESOLUTION: consensus on option B for now, unless someone has objections
<scribe> ACTION: SAZ send resolution to the list to get input from the group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/20-er-irc]