See also: IRC log
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/guide-issues
SAZ: most issues closed last week; some still
open
... Go through remaining issues and questions today.
... Hope to reach CR in November.
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Oct/0002
CarlosV: xUnit format: used in unit test
frameworks.
... I don't see anything in it that we are not addressing; use cases are
different.
SAZ: So you could export xUnit from EARL
CarlosV: If we find an official DTD.
... could not find an official DTD.
SAZ: anyone leading xUnit?
Carlos: apparently not anyone responsible for the vocabuolary.
CarlosV: open-source project; see xUnit library
<shadi> http://xunit.codeplex.com/
<shadi> http://readthedocs.org/docs/nose/en/latest/plugins/xunit.html
CarlosV: Usage does not seem to be widespread.
... Only 503 downloads...
SAZ: updated 2/3 times a year.
<shadi> http://xunit.codeplex.com/team/view
SAZ: Microsoft is also a project member.
... Summary: If there were an official DTD we could probably convert EARL data
to xUnit. ...
... ... Wondering whether getting in touch with Brad Wilson to point out that
EARL exists and that EARL could be output as xUnit XML and ask whether an
official DTD is available and/or they would be interested in creating a
converter.
... ... No dependency on our side, so don't need to wait for it.
CarlosV: Writing an e-mail is OK.
<shadi> ACTION: carlosv to contact xUnit lead developer to inform them about EARL and the possibility of converting EARL reports to XML format using corresponding DTDs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/19-er-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-134 - Contact xUnit lead developer to inform them about EARL and the possibility of converting EARL reports to XML format using corresponding DTDs [on Carlos A. Velasco - due 2011-10-26].
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues
SAZ: Conformance section: later.
... open comment on "Use OWL constraints to express conformance
requirements":
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues#overall
<shadi> "Use OWL constraints to express conformance requirements"
SAZ: previously also get that comment about our
constraints.
... about using OWL instead of describing the constraints verbally.
... Benefits for us were not so clear.
... Any concrete suggestions?
CarlosV: in properties: use cardinality, .... but the whole conformance: not so sure.
SAZ: cf comment "Drop rdfs:Domain and rdfs:Range
for OWL constraints to increase reusability of the terms"
... also recently raised by someone else (cf last week)
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011Sep/0000.html
SAZ: Using Domain and Range is best practice but
we get these comments;
... Anyone interested in reading up on this?
... Next open issue: "Consider use of profiles for conformance"
<shadi> "Consider use of profiles for conformance"
SAZ: Action item created for CarlosI to look at
different specs that use profiles. In the mean time, anyone else has experience
with this? Complexity vs good design?
... Next open issue: 'Use of prefix "dc" vs "dct"'
... First comment was correct.
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011Jun/0000.html
SAZ: Second comment: (cf last week) requires the opposite. DCMI folks now use dc for all terms.
Samuel: dct not only for the newer terms...
... Can have a deeper look.
<shadi> ACTION: samuel to look into current best practice for using "dc" vs "dct" prefix for Dublin Core terms (elements, properties, etc) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/19-er-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-135 - Look into current best practice for using "dc" vs "dct" prefix for Dublin Core terms (elements, properties, etc) [on Samuel Sirois - due 2011-10-26].
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues#mainAssertor
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2011/07/13-er-minutes.html
SAZ: mainAssertor allows for endless loops. Cf 23 July call.
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0036
SAZ: particulary HTTP-in-RDF and Content-in-RDF
would be candidates.
... They would then be more stable (authority, ...). But we would also need to
put more effort into documenting implementation and the development of test
suites for tool developers.
CarlosV: Would still like to go to REC.
... Pointers: not all implemented.
Kostas: EARL Schema implemented. No plans for
other parts in near future. HTTP: also support HTTPS.
... HTTP headers are also recorded.
SAZ: If we go to REC track, we need firm commitment. Otherwise we get stuck in CR phase.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process.php
sinarmaya: In HERA not clear when implementation would happen.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/timeline#meeting
Next meeting 26 October.
SAZ: 2 November meeting would coincide with TPAC in USA.
<kostas> 26 i will be in brussels for the mandate workshop and other meetings