[contents]
Copyright © 2009 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use rules apply.
This document is an introductory guide to the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 and is intended to accompany the normative document Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema [EARL-Schema]. The Evaluation and Report Language is a framework for expressing test results. Although the term test can be taken in its most widely accepted definition, EARL is primarily intended for reporting and exchanging results of tests of Web applications and resources. EARL is a vendor-neutral and platform-independent format.
EARL is expressed in the form of an RDF vocabulary. The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for representing semantically information about resources in the World Wide Web. However, EARL is not conceptually restricted to these resources and could be applied in other scenarios.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
Please send comments about this document to the mailing list of the ERT WG. The archives for this list are publicly available.
This is a W3C Working Draft of the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Guide. This document will be published and maintained as a W3C Recommendation after review and refinement. Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
This document was produced under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. The Working Group maintains a public list of patent disclosures relevant to this document; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) with respect to this specification should disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
This document has been produced as part of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The goals of the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) are discussed in the Working Group charter. The ERT WG is part of the WAI Technical Activity.
This document is an introductory guide to the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 and is intended to accompany the normative document Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema [EARL-Schema] and its associated vocabularies: HTTP Vocabulary in RDF [HTTP-RDF], Representing Content in RDF [Content-RDF] and Pointer Methods in RDF [Pointers-RDF]. The objectives of this document are:
The primary audience of this document are quality assurance and testing tool developers such as accessibility checkers, markup validators, etc. Additionally, we expect that EARL can support accessibility and usability advocates, metadata experts and Semantic Web practitioners, among others. We do not assume any previous knowledge of EARL, but it is not the target of this document to introduce the reader to the intricacies of RDF and, therefore, the following background knowledge is required:
Although the concepts of the Semantic Web are simple, their abstraction with RDF is known to bring difficulties to beginners. It is recommended to read carefully the aforementioned references and other tutorials found on the Web. It must be also borne in mind that RDF is primarily targeted to be machine processable and, therefore, some of its expressions are not very intuitive for developers used to work with XML only.
Editor's Note: insert here a paragraph on the structure of the Guide.
The Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) is a framework targeted to express and compare test results. EARL builds on top of the Resource Description Framework [RDF], which is the basis for the Semantic Web. Like any RDF vocabulary, EARL is a collection of statements about resources, each with a subject, a predicate (or a verb) and an object. These statements can be serialized in many ways (e.g., RDF/XML or Notation 3, also known as N3). A typical EARL report could contain the following statements (simplifying the notation and not including namespaces):
<#someone> <#checks> <#resource> . <#resource> <#fails> <#test> .
From these simple two statements, it can be inferred already the main components of an EARL Report (wrapped up in an assertion):
This structure shows the universal applicability of EARL and its ability to refer to any type of test: bug reports, software unit tests, test suite evaluations, conformance claims or even tests outside the world of software and the World Wide Web (although in such cases, there might be open issues for its full applicability). It must be stressed again the semantic nature of EARL: its purpose is to facilitate the extraction and comparison of test results by humans and especially by tools (the Semantic Web paradigm); it is not an application for information storage, for which some other XML applications might be more suitable.
Initially, EARL was created as a way to create, merge and compare Web accessibility reports from different sources (tools, experts, etc.). However, this original aim has been expanded to cover wider testing scenarios. Summarising, EARL enables the:
We want to highlight that the extensibility of RDF allows to tool vendors or developers the addition of new functionalities to the vocabulary, without losing any of the aforementioned characteristics, as other testers might ignore those extensions that they do not understand when processing third-party results.
It is also important to consider potential security and privacy issues when using EARL. For instance, test results expressed in EARL could contain sensitive information such as the internal directory structure of a Web server, username and password information, parts of restricted Web pages, or testing modalities, for example. The scope of this document is limited to the use of the EARL vocabulary: security and privacy considerations need to be made at the application level. For example, certain parts of the data may be restricted to appropriate user permissions, encrypted or obfuscated.
The keywords must, required, recommended, should, may, and optional in this document are used in accordance with RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The applicability of EARL to different scenarios can be seen in the following use cases:
EARL is flexible enough to respond to the needs of a variety of audiences involved in a testing or quality assurance process. Typical profiles are:
In software testing and quality assurance environments there are several typical steps that are followed. These are:
Figure 1 displays graphically the aforementioned elements:
Figure 1. Steps in software testing processes.
The previous steps can be matched to existing standards like IEEE 829 [IEEE-829], which defines a set of basic software tests documents.
EARL is not an standalone vocabulary, and builds on top of many existing vocabularies that cover some of its needs for metadata definition. This approach avoids the re-creation of applications already established and tested like the Dublin Core elements. The referenced specifications are:
foaf:Person and foaf:Project [FOAF].RDF can be serialized in different ways, but the XML representation [RDF/XML] is the preferred method and will be used throughout this document. However, even when selecting this approach, there are many equivalent ways to express an RDF model.
These vocabularies are referenced via namespaces in the corresponding RDF serialization. The list of the normative namespaces can be found in the EARL 1.0 Schema.
In the following sections, we will make an step-by-step introduction to EARL with several examples. The root element of any EARL report is an RDF node, as with any RDF vocabulary. There, we declare the corresponding namespaces and possibly any custom namespace used to define additional classes and or properties.
Example 3.1. The root element of an EARL report [download file].
<rdf:RDF xmlns:earl="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<!-- ... -->
</rd:RDF>Next, let us assume that we want to express the results of an XHTML validation in a given document with the W3C HTML Validator in EARL. The tested document has the following HTML code:
Example 3.2. An XHTML document to be validated [download file].
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>Example of project pages</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Project description</h1>
<h2>My project name</h2>
<!-- ... -->
</body>
</html>This document has three errors that will constitute the basis of our EARL report:
li"
here; missing one of "ul", "ol" start-tag.li" omitted, but OMITTAG NO
was specified.alt".[Editor's note: To be extended. Include here Content, HTTP y Pointers]
[Editor's note: To be added: EARL extension; aggregation of reports; ...]
This guide presented a thorough overview of the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL). As mentioned in the introduction, EARL must be seen as a generic framework that can facilitate the creation and exchange of test reports. In this generality lies its strength, as it can be applied to multiple scenarios and use cases, which may even lay outside the world of software development and compliance testing.
The EARL framework allow as well merging and aggregation of results in a semantic manner, thus enabling different testing actors to share and improve results.
Of course, there could be scenarios where EARL might not be able to cope with their underlying complexity. However, its semantic nature allows its extensibility via proprietary vocabularies based upon RDF, without endangering the interoperability of the reports.
The Working Group is looking forward to receiving feedback on the current version of the schema, and expects from implementers of compliance tools issues and suggestions for improvement.
http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dces/http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDF-XMLhttp://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txthttp://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/Shadi Abou-Zahra, Carlos Iglesias, Michael A Squillace, Johannes Koch and Carlos A Velasco.