Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference

Continue processing comments

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0027.html

CarlosV: would leave it as it is
... nothing wrong with it

Shadi: discussed this in the past, we would need a assertion container, that groups different assertions
... quite complex, so we decided to drop this
... verboose, but not redundant information

RESOLUTION: To reduce verbosity the complexity of the model would be far higher, group is not willing to take this step

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0028.html

Shadi: within rdf schema you can use defined by to link

CarlosV: Would accept comment

Shadi: spec and schema cross references would be good

<cstrobbe> would that be rdfs:isDefinedBy ?

RESOLUTION: Accept the comment

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0029.html

CarlosV: Accept it

Shadi: Right, is a bug

RESOLUTION: Accept the comment

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0030.html

RESOLUTION: Accept the comment

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0031.html

RESOLUTION: Accept the comment

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0032.html

<scribe> ACTION: CarlosV to review xUnit [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/07-er-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-132 - Review xUnit [on Carlos A. Velasco - due 2011-09-14].

<scribe> ACTION: CStrobbe to review TAP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/07-er-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-133 - Review TAP [on Christophe Strobbe - due 2011-09-14].

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0033.html

Shadi: direct RDF to JSON conversion is really difficult
... if we would have an xml serialization, it would be much easier
... most important to have an xml schema
... RDF is not focused on the information structure
... which serialization would be most useful to tool developers
... there are no dependencies between the different serializations
... happy to have support to create those serializations

RESOLUTION: explain the current situation with respect to serialization

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0034.html

CarlosV: don't think it is a must for us

Shadi: agreed
... it's not part of the inital requirements

RESOLUTION: explain the current situation with respect to serialization

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0036.html

CarlosV: maybe thats right

CStrobbe: what are the reasons for making these other documents WG notes?

Shadi: HTTP in RDF seems really stable
... Content in RDF and Pointer in RDF needs more reviewing

CarlosV: Content in RDF is important part of EARL processing tool

Shadi: if EARL Guide does not contain the conformance requirement
... then it should not go to REC
... so that it can be updated more easily
... for the other parts we need to check with the implementations
... any we put in REC we need implementations for

CarlosV: we got Content and HTTP in RDF in full
... in our implementation

RESOLUTION: group is considering putting some modules on REC trac

Upcoming meeting schedule

<shadi> meeting next week

<shadi> probably no meeting on 21st

<shadi> possibly meeting on 28th

<shadi> regrets from CarlosV and Philip on 5th Oct

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/timeline