Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0010.html

SAZ: potentially allows recurrsions and endless loops
... one suggestion it to have main assertor be foaf:Group and sub assertors be foaf:Agent, and make these disjoint
... but there could be cases when there are sub-groups of groups (for instance tester team for an accessibility expert team)
... another suggestion is to add a conformance requirement which would be on a semantical level rather than on a syntactical level

CV: could use foaf:Agent as the range

SAZ: would only remove first-level loops but would still need a conformance requirement

CV: MainAssertor class that has the mainAssertor property but is essentially the same as Assertor class
... use isMainAssertorOf
... isMainAssertor only, as a "flag" to mark main assertors

current approach: {A, B, C}; {A -> D, E}; {B -> F}

sugestion: {A+, B+, C, D, E, F}

<carlosV> {A, B+, C}; {A -> D, E}; {B -> F}

or: {A+, B+, C}; {A+, D, E}; {B+, F}

<carlosV> {A+, B+, C}; {A-> D, E}; {B->F}

or: {A+, B+, C}; A={A", D, E}; B={B", F}
... {A+, B+, C}; A+={X, D, E}; B+={Y, F}

CI: not in favor of flags; does not seem to be the semantic web approach

<scribe> ACTION: shadi to send two options to the group by mail to seek more input [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/13-er-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Send two options to the group by mail to seek more input [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2011-07-20].

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0012.html

SAZ: want more description and examples
... can add more in the Schema and/or to the Guide

CV: can add the descriptions that are in the tables into the main body
... but keep the Schema concise

CI: examples and additional background belong in the Guide
... but the complete definition itself should be in the Schema

RESOLUTION: add the descriptions from the appendecies and insert them into the main body, then review before publication whether the Schema sections provide sufficient definitions; and consider adding any additional explanations and background into the Guide

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0013.html

SAZ: so far sorting alphabetically

CV: keep alphabetically in the Schema but not necessarily in the Guide

SAZ: think should be consistent

RESOLUTION: keep alphabetical for now, then revisit when the Guide is more complete to decide what sorting approach to take

trackbot, end meeting