Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference -- 27 May 2009

EARL 1.0 Guide

[section 2 may be verbose, should look if it can be shortened]

[look at possibility of combining sections 2.1 and 2.2]

[break down section 3.1 into further sub-sections]

[consider removing section 5, it does not seem to add any additional information]

[several typographical errors, please check it carefully]

[remove overuse of <acronym> tags]

[use of acronyms: (1) do not markup acronyms when it is expanded right before the acronym. example: "Evaluation and Report Language (EARL)" and not "Evaluation and Report Language (<acronym title="...">EARL</acronym>)"

(2) do not markup acronyms if it has been already marked up or explanded in the same sub-section

(3) do markup acronyms at the beginning of each sub-section, if they are not expanded

(4) consider expanding each acronym (rather than markup variant) in the first occurence of each major section

[all <DL> elements have an indentation, please remove and only add indentation where appropriate]

[please prioritize expanding section 4 at this stage]

EARL 1.0 Schema comments

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2009May/0027

<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to confirm scope of foaf:Document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-er-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Confirm scope of foaf:Document [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2009-06-03].

<scribe> ACTION: Shadi confirm DC namespaces and notify ERT WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-er-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Confirm DC namespaces and notify ERT WG [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2009-06-03].

<scribe> ACTION: Shadi confirm pros/cons of using OWL in addition to RDFS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-er-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Confirm pros/cons of using OWL in addition to RDFS [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2009-06-03].

<scribe> ACTION: CarlosI check with colleagues about syntax examples for OWL additions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-er-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - CarlosI

<scribe> ACTION: ciglesia check with colleagues about syntax examples for OWL additions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-er-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Check with colleagues about syntax examples for OWL additions [on Carlos Iglesias - due 2009-06-03].

<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to add RDF references to the HTML in EARL 1.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-er-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Add RDF references to the HTML in EARL 1.0 [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2009-06-03].

<scribe> ACTION: ciglesia to add RDF references to the HTML in Pointers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-er-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Add RDF references to the HTML in Pointers [on Carlos Iglesias - due 2009-06-03].

<scribe> ACTION: johannes to add RDF references to the HTML in Content and HTTP-in-RDF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-er-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Add RDF references to the HTML in Content and HTTP-in-RDF [on Johannes Koch - due 2009-06-03].

SAZ: for duality issue, we need to say that comparison is on the type

MS: then an assertion with earl:failed and myNS:nearlyPassed (which is also an instance of earl:Fail) would be equivalent
... not sure that we want that

SAZ: thought we did, it is a use-case to provide the possibility of granuality but comparison mechanisms on Pass/Fail/NA etc level

<scribe> ACTION: Shadi extract discussion on comparion of OutcomeValue and bring it to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-er-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-97 - Extract discussion on comparion of OutcomeValue and bring it to the list [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2009-06-03].