13:23:51 RRSAgent has joined #er 13:23:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/25-er-irc 13:23:53 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:23:55 Zakim, this will be 3794 13:23:55 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 13:23:56 Meeting: Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference 13:23:56 Date: 25 February 2009 13:27:18 MikeS has joined #er 13:28:19 zakim, call shadi-617 13:28:19 ok, shadi; the call is being made 13:28:20 WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM has now started 13:28:21 +Shadi 13:28:34 +MikeS 13:28:36 -MikeS 13:28:36 +MikeS 13:28:45 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2009Feb/0011.html 13:28:51 chair: MikeS 13:29:04 agenda+ Review of updated EARL 1.0 Schema 13:29:11 JohannesK has joined #er 13:29:17 agenda+ status of EARL requirements and EARL Guide documents 13:29:31 agenda+ Next and future meetings 13:29:35 agenda? 13:29:45 zakim, drop agendum 1 13:29:45 agendum 1, Response to AWWSW comments on HTTP-in-RDF, dropped 13:29:48 zakim, drop agendum 2 13:29:48 agendum 2, Next meetings, dropped 13:32:16 regrets: Johannes 13:32:37 cvelasco has joined #er 13:33:55 +CarlosV 13:34:48 JohannesK has joined #er 13:35:40 scribe: Shadi 13:36:05 agenda? 13:36:33 zakim, take up agendum 3 13:36:33 agendum 3. "Review of updated EARL 1.0 Schema" taken up [from shadi] 13:37:08 MS: let's jump directly to the conformance section first 13:37:27 ...thought it was helpful 13:37:31 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090223#conformance 13:38:11 carlosI has joined #er 13:39:00 ...separation between producers and consumers is important 13:39:11 ...seems to be little difference between the two 13:39:20 CV: does the term validation make sense? 13:39:36 +CarlosI 13:40:56 http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/#Conformance 13:41:18 CV: CCPP does it differently 13:42:04 SAZ: MikeS had an action item, and confirmed that different specs define conformance differently 13:43:28 CV: they established first document conformance, then producers, then processors 13:44:14 ...more fine grained 13:45:09 SAZ: validity term not an issue? 13:45:20 CV: CCPP also use it, should be ok 13:48:11 SAZ: an issue of organization, want more highlighting of the sections? 13:48:25 CV: yes, also address document conformance 13:48:43 SAZ: EARL is not necessarily a single document, rather data 13:49:43 SAZ: also Johannes raised an issue about unclarity of what producers/consumers should do 13:49:56 "Model conformance" instead of "Document confomance"? 13:49:57 ...maybe also relates to formatting and organization 13:50:17 [suggestion: Data Conformance] 13:54:53 MS: separation between consumer and producer 13:55:29 SAZ: found that there is large overlap, although producers could be more minimal because they do not need to output all data 13:55:51 ...but consumers should be able to process all data defined by this document 13:56:40 MS: maybe need to be spelled out more clearly 13:57:11 ...or do the opposite, mention it briefly and see what comments come in 13:58:04 http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/#Conformance 13:58:54 CI: agree that current wording is a little vague 13:59:03 ...not sure how to improve it 13:59:22 SAZ: going in the right direction? 13:59:29 CI: think so 14:00:36 What about the properties with no restrictions? Is a conforming EARL producer required to be able to support these properties? 14:02:38 SAZ: like to continue with this approach, seem to be on a right track 14:03:02 ...could work on improving the organization and formatting 14:03:26 ...think that we will need to look at the restrictions closely 14:03:52 ...especially during Candidate Recommendation stage we may identify conflicts or unexpected situations 14:04:38 action: shadi to continue refining the conformance section by spelling out report, producer, and consumer conformance more clearly 14:04:38 Created ACTION-78 - Continue refining the conformance section by spelling out report, producer, and consumer conformance more clearly [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2009-03-04]. 14:07:12 SAZ: EARL producer does not have to generate optional properties 14:07:26 ...would not be possible to check if they can actually support it 14:08:23 CV: would need a test file with an optional property, and see if the output also contains that property or if it has been dropped 14:09:39 SAZ: that is a new type of tool, like an aggregator 14:10:00 ...it is a consumer and a producer at the same time 14:10:07 A person using that producer tool could check 14:10:30 ...we could require these not to drop information from the input 14:14:51 MS: doesn't address the actual question 14:16:15 SAZ: could say producers MUST be able to generate all required properties, and SHOULD be able to generate the optional ones 14:17:48 CV: don't think this is real conformance, should be able to generate all 14:18:08 CI: why are the properties optional then? 14:18:49 because in sme cases they don't make sense 14:18:58 s/sme/some/ 14:20:41 SAZ: seems like we may need something like partial conformance 14:21:11 ...for example to encourage tools that only output certain type of information 14:21:31 MS: how do we define partial? 14:21:43 SAZ: tools that support any parts of EARL 14:21:59 MS: assertor without an assertion? 14:22:20 s/assertor without an assertion?/assertion without an assertor? 14:23:54 SAZ: could require that if a class is generated, all required properties must be supported 14:24:45 action: shadi to add information about aggregator tools and about partial conformance 14:24:45 Created ACTION-79 - Add information about aggregator tools and about partial conformance [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2009-03-04]. 14:25:18 Shall we add "Schema-aware processing is not required" to the consumer section like in CC/PP? 14:27:35 SAZ: was confused about redefining Domain and Range 14:27:49 ...Ivan confirmed that it is not a redefinition 14:27:54 ...it is ok to do 14:28:09 MS: so it gets multiple domain and ranges? 14:29:28 SAZ: yes, Johannes was right 14:29:55 zakim, take up next 14:29:55 agendum 4. "status of EARL requirements and EARL Guide documents" taken up [from shadi] 14:30:09 MS: who is editor for the requirements? 14:30:29 SAZ: I was, never got round to it 14:30:39 ...we have change requests since the f2f 14:30:46 MS: I could look at these 14:30:53 ...what about the Guide? 14:31:04 CV: Johannes and I 14:31:12 ...will work on it 14:31:31 MS: maybe provide something in 2 weeks from now? 14:31:34 CV: yes 14:31:39 zakim, take up next 14:31:39 agendum 5. "Next and future meetings" taken up [from shadi] 14:31:55 -MikeS 14:31:57 /quit 14:31:58 -CarlosV 14:31:59 next meetings: 4 March, 11 March 14:32:07 trackbot, end meeting 14:32:07 Zakim, list attendees 14:32:07 As of this point the attendees have been Shadi, MikeS, CarlosV, CarlosI 14:32:08 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 14:32:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/25-er-minutes.html trackbot 14:32:09 RRSAgent, bye 14:32:09 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/25-er-actions.rdf : 14:32:09 ACTION: shadi to continue refining the conformance section by spelling out report, producer, and consumer conformance more clearly [1] 14:32:09 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/25-er-irc#T14-04-38 14:32:09 ACTION: shadi to add information about aggregator tools and about partial conformance [2] 14:32:09 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/25-er-irc#T14-24-45 14:32:11 -CarlosI