Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference -- 23 Nov 2011

Complete log of issues

Comments, open issues, pending issues, resolutions all logged at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues and the other URLs

EARL Guide needs editing.

WG participants should check the list, the resolutions and the open issues.

CarlosV: Talk to Semantic Web people on OWL etc?

Shadi: See first 5 open issues.
... Could use some help on design of the Schema (OWL constraints, conformance requirements).
... Also, send your thoughts to the list.
... Third issue: dc or dct prefix: conflicting comments.
... Samuel was also going to look into this.

CarlosV: Elsewhere comments preferred dct.

Shadi: Fourth issue: profiles for conformance. About how to phrase conformance requirements.
... Some other W3C specs use profiles. Please look into this and discuss it on the mailing list.
... Fifth open issue: move conformance to the top of the document.

CStrobbe: other W3C specs: no consistency in where they put the conformance section.

Shadi: Pending = we took a resolution but action is required to update the draft.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/guide-issues

Shadi: Open issues for the EARL Guide.
... dc vs dct prefix issue propagates through all the EARL docs.
... open issue on overlap between TAP and xUnit : no overlap; see we could take a resolution today.
... subsequent discussion with TAP people: e.g. TAP also supports streaming.

RESOLUTION: The use cases for TAP and xUnit are significantly different from EARL so that further work is not necessary.

EARL 1.0 Test Suite

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/tests/

Shadi: EARL can't pass Candidate Recommendation phase without a test suite.
... A test suite would help evaluate an implementation.
... We need to think about both EARL input and EARL output.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/tests/test0001.rdf

Shadi: minimal test file / EARL report.
... The second test could be a complete example with example code from the spec.
... We have something like that in the EARL Guide.
... A complete working example that we can use throughout. Using all the features.

CarlosV: Working on HTTP-in-RDF.

<philipA> <rdf:RDF

<philipA> xmlns:cs="http://imergo.com/ns/2012/compliancesets#"

<philipA> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"

<philipA> xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"

<philipA> xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"

<philipA> xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"

<philipA> xml:base="http://imergo.com/ns/tests/F30.rdf">

<philipA> <dct:description>This describes a failure condition for all techniques involving text alternatives. If the text in the "text alternative" cannot be used in place of the non-text content without losing information or function then it fails because it is not, in fact, an alternative to the non-text content.</dct:description>

<philipA> <dct:title>F30: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 due to using text alternatives that are not alternatives (e.g., filenames or placeholder text)</dct:title>

<philipA> <rdfs:label>Fraunhofer Gesellschaft</rdfs:label>

CarlosV: working on test case description; cf TCDL.

Carlos: Also have expected outcome and pointers.

CarlosV: SPARQL was also under consideration.

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2005Oct/att-0014/wcag10.rdf

Shadi: We should generate tests, each of which highlights a different feature, e.g. subclass Info, ...

CarlosV: We need test files and derived EARL reports for these test files.

Shadi: For the test suite, we want test reports rather than test descriptions.
... First example is minimal; could use earl:Assertor instead.
... If everyone generates 5-10 files, we have a nice set.

CarlosV: CVS access?

Shadi: Yes, or just send them to me. But we will need to think about where to put them for public access.

ChristopheS: Then, what exactly do we do with the test files?

Shadi: Tools that input EARL...

EARL 1.0 Checker(s)

Shadi: We need EARL checkers: software that checks the report to check that it is valid. Cf conformance requirements.
... There are PHP RDF libraries and libraries in other languages. A checker could be fairly simple.
... We'll need at least the test suite to enter CR; we will also need the EARL checker to exit Candidate Recommendation phase.

REC-track of EARL modules?

Shadi: Open issue: other specification on Recommendation track.
... This would imply more test suites, implementation documentation and more checkers.
... Keeping modules off REC track, to avoid getting locked in CR phase?
... Currently, only EARL Schema is on REC track; all other documents are planned to become WG Notes.
... Any objections or comments?

CarlosV: Implementation could be quite complex with some of the specs.

RESOLUTION: Keep EARL modules as Working Group Notes.

Shadi: Open action items.

samuelm: Contradictory sources regarding dc versus dct namespace prefix.

Shadi: On Dublin Core site: contact them on the latest status.

samuelm: dc or dct is just a convention; we may not get a definitive answer from Dublin Core.

Upcoming meeting schedule

Shadi: No meeting next week, nor on 7 December.
... By next meeting (14 December): drafts for WG member to look at. Please also work on the test suites and possibly an EARL checker.

Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference

23 Nov 2011

Attendees

Contents

Complete log of issues

EARL 1.0 Test Suite

EARL 1.0 Checker(s)

REC-track of EARL modules?

Upcoming meeting schedule

Summary of Action Items