Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference

09 Nov 2011


See also: IRC log


Shadi, Philip, Christophe, CarlosV, Kostas
Emmanuelle, Samuel


Candidate Recommendation exit criteria

Shadi: there are already some tool implementations of EARL
... like imergo or AccessODF
... need to document these implementations, the features
... test suites: how could they look like
... to enter candidate recommendation, we need implementations and test suites
... what is sufficient for tools, output earl or input earl as well
... two tools that output each feature, two tools that input each feature

Christophe: AccessODF both produces and consumes EARL
... generates EARL and displays the EARL results

PhilipA: imergo has a server side component that generates EARL and a client that processes and displays those EARL results

CarlosV: when do you need the full documentation?

Shadi: I would like to enter candidate recommendation in December
... documentations ready until end of February
... thats feasible?

CarlosV: if we concentrate first on the schema? and then on the guide?

Shadi: documentation needs to come from the developers
... same for the test suites
... documentation as some kind of table, listing each feature and tool
... half page description of the tool

CarlosV: thats ok

Shadi: tool needs not to be public
... only documentation of its functionality

Christophe: we have some test files
... odf files

kostas: yes, we can provide some tests

CarlosV: yes, we have for example html test files

Shadi: EARL report has most likely to be part of the test suite
... so that second tools could compare their results with those
... we need EARL that conform to the conformance section
... and EARL reports that don't conform to the conformance section
... what do you think?

kostas: we have followed EARL but we also created new attributes, that would be still conform?

Shadi: yes, creating new attributes is ok
... for example extending the outcome values is allowed
... testsuites will look like:
... 1.) sample EARL files that conform
... 2.) tool developers would compare their output to those to check that the EARL graphs matches
... 3.) plus EARL files that do not conform

CarlosV: sounds good
... Johannes started an EARL checker once

Shadi: EARL checker would tell you if an EARL file conforms to the conformance sections

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Guide/#conformance

Conformance Requirements

Shadi: moved from schema to guide
... how other w3 specs handle conformance requirements

<cstrobbe> E.g. Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile/

<cstrobbe> Mobile SVG Profiles: conformance criteria: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile/#sec-conformance

<cstrobbe> Perhaps see also OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/

<shadi> Conforming EARL 1.0 reports adhere to the requirements listed in 4.1 Conforming EARL 1.0 Reports

<shadi> Software tools that produce conforming EARL 1.0 reports can provide them in valid RDF/XML notation

<shadi> Software tools that process conforming EARL 1.0 reports can accept them in valid RDF/XML notation

Shadi: 1.) EARL report as meta data
... 2.) EARL report as output
... 3.) EARL report as input
... different rules apply
... continue discussion next week

Next Meeting

<shadi> 16 November 2011

<kostas> i am available

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/11/14 08:41:26 $