See also: IRC log
MS: let's jump directly to the conformance
section first
... thought it was helpful
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090223#conformance
scribe: separation between producers and
consumers is important
... seems to be little difference between the two
CV: does the term validation make sense?
<cvelasco> http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/#Conformance
CV: CCPP does it differently
SAZ: MikeS had an action item, and confirmed that different specs define conformance differently
CV: they established first document
conformance, then producers, then processors
... more fine grained
SAZ: validity term not an issue?
CV: CCPP also use it, should be ok
SAZ: an issue of organization, want more highlighting of the sections?
CV: yes, also address document conformance
SAZ: EARL is not necessarily a single document,
rather data
... also Johannes raised an issue about unclarity of what producers/consumers
should do
<JohannesK> "Model conformance" instead of "Document confomance"?
SAZ: maybe also relates to formatting and organization
[suggestion: Data Conformance]
MS: separation between consumer and producer
SAZ: found that there is large overlap,
although producers could be more minimal because they do not need to output
all data
... but consumers should be able to process all data defined by this
document
MS: maybe need to be spelled out more
clearly
... or do the opposite, mention it briefly and see what comments come in
http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/#Conformance
CI: agree that current wording is a little
vague
... not sure how to improve it
SAZ: going in the right direction?
CI: think so
<JohannesK> What about the properties with no restrictions? Is a conforming EARL producer required to be able to support these properties?
SAZ: like to continue with this approach, seem
to be on a right track
... could work on improving the organization and formatting
... think that we will need to look at the restrictions closely
... especially during Candidate Recommendation stage we may identify
conflicts or unexpected situations
<scribe> ACTION: shadi to continue refining the conformance section by spelling out report, producer, and consumer conformance more clearly [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/25-er-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> 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].
SAZ: EARL producer does not have to generate
optional properties
... would not be possible to check if they can actually support it
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
SAZ: that is a new type of tool, like an
aggregator
... it is a consumer and a producer at the same time
<JohannesK> A person using that producer tool could check
SAZ: we could require these not to drop information from the input
MS: doesn't address the actual question
SAZ: could say producers MUST be able to generate all required properties, and SHOULD be able to generate the optional ones
CV: don't think this is real conformance, should be able to generate all
CI: why are the properties optional then?
<JohannesK> because in some cases they don't make sense
SAZ: seems like we may need something like
partial conformance
... for example to encourage tools that only output certain type of
information
MS: how do we define partial?
SAZ: tools that support any parts of EARL
MS: assertion without an assertor?
SAZ: could require that if a class is generated, all required properties must be supported
<scribe> ACTION: shadi to add information about aggregator tools and about partial conformance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/25-er-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-79 - Add information about aggregator tools and about partial conformance [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2009-03-04].
<JohannesK> Shall we add "Schema-aware processing is not required" to the consumer section like in CC/PP?
SAZ: was confused about redefining Domain and
Range
... Ivan confirmed that it is not a redefinition
... it is ok to do
MS: so it gets multiple domain and ranges?
SAZ: yes, Johannes was right
MS: who is editor for the requirements?
SAZ: I was, never got round to it
... we have change requests since the f2f
MS: I could look at these
... what about the Guide?
CV: Johannes and I
... will work on it
MS: maybe provide something in 2 weeks from now?
CV: yes
next meetings: 4 March, 11 March