See also: IRC log
<shadi> Don Raikes
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Feb/0013.html
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011Dec/0000.html
Shadi: any thoughts?
<shadi> earl:cause
Shadi: Proposal is, to have a property called "cause", describing the cause of an error
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/#TestResult
<shadi> earl:info
<shadi> earl:outcome
<shadi> earl:pointer
Shadi: "cause" could be a kind of an "info"
<shadi> my:cause is sub-property of earl:info
Shadi: ok to propose this?
PhilipA: Can a sub-property extend the range?
... Or must it use a literal as in "earl:info"?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_properties
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_subclassof
Shadi: I think it would keep the range and cannot extend it, but not quite sure. Will look into it.
SamuelM: I'm think it mixes application logic (cause of error) with the report
Shadi: Do we need to have more structure?
SamuelM: from the perspective of webid it could be useful, agreed
Shadi: Are there other use cases than for for
webid?
... first question / ACTION: check if sub-property inherits
range or if it can change the range
... maybe another approach is to drop the range for "earl:info"
<shadi> ACTION: shadi to check if domain and range of a property are transposed to a sub-property [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/08-er-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-136 - Check if domain and range of a property are transposed to a sub-property [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2012-02-15].
Shadi: second question: think about other use cases for this
<shadi> Topics: Close open issues
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues#overall
<shadi> [[Drop rdfs:Domain and rdfs:Range for OWL constraints to increase reusability of the terms]]
Shadi: 1.) drop rdfs:Domain and rdfs:Range
... 2.) use OWL constraints
... I did ask a semantic web colleague about this
... conflicting comments from the semantic web people
... there isn't any reason to change it
... my proposal to close this item without dropping rdf:Domain and rdfs:Range
and withoud using OWL constraints
... any objections?
<shadi> RESOLUTION: close issue "Drop rdfs:Domain and rdfs:Range for OWL constraints to increase reusability of the terms"
<shadi> RESOLUTION: close issue "Use OWL constraints to express conformance requirements"
<shadi> [[Use of prefix "dc" vs "dct"]]
SamuelM: we have two different namespaces, one
pointing to dc terms and to dc elements
... in case of dc terms we use the prefix "dct", in case of dc elements we use
"dc"
... but we will align to the community
<shadi> http://dublincore.org/schemas/rdfs/#NAMESPACE
<samuelm> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
SamuelM: but we need to be consistent in the EARL specification
<shadi> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-namespace/
Shadi: "dc" seems to be more widely used as "dct"
<shadi> "dc" usually more than "dct" or "dc-terms"
SamuelM: but "dc" refers to the older specification
<shadi> "dcmi-terms"
<shadi> [[suggestion "dct" or "dc-terms"]]
SamuelM: suggestion would be to use "dct" or
"dc-terms"
... in no case use "dc", because it points to the older specification
<shadi> RESOLUTION: use prefix "dc" with namespace http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
<shadi> RESOLUTION: use prefix "dct" with namespace http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/guide-issues#serialization
Shadi: EARL can represent TAP and xUnit
... TAP seems to be more line-based with sequentially output
... mabe put in a paragraph in the EARL guide
... clarifying the relationship from EARL to TAP an xUnit
<shadi> RESOLUTION: no overlapping use cases even though all three specifications allow the representation of test results; could mention that EARL results can be serialized as TAP and/or xUnit, and vice-versa, in the corresponding section
<shadi> 22 February 2012
<shadi> 7 March 2012