See also: IRC log
SA: suggested real changes to EARL schema -
page was sent to list
... some changes not controversial, can be accepted on call
... would like group to vote on changes though
... asking for overall impressions
Jim: sounds good
CR: overall good, still need to review in detail
SA: no major objections on list
... will review item by item now, if needs discussion will flag for further
discussion
... trying to find which part of doc needs work
<chaals> item - change character set
<chaals> [chaals agrees]
SA: header? move to formal vote
... doctype? concerns over FOAF
CMN: suggests drop entities
... should not have entities in schema
... should not define classes
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to suggest we drop the entities stuff
<JohannesK> http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
JK: new namespace for RDF schema above
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to respond that we should have OWL at some point...
CMN: at some point we need to define OWL restrictions
SA: we need to let other discussions settle before deciding on entities
CMN: would rather have whole name
... including entities can create problems
Jim: not every tool supports entities so should be dropped
JK: can be dropped as is shorthand for "lazy people"
SA: RDF root will include full name
... will wait untill other discussions resolved
... core classes -----
... 'location' was added and used in assertion
... OK to keep for now?
CMN: OK to have location
... would not put in subclasses as resources, redundant
... would like to see labels and comments and language
... all human text should have language
... do not to say subclass of resource, apparent from schema but needs
label
<chaals> for example
<chaals> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Location">
<chaals> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Location information</rdfs:label>
<chaals> <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">A piece of information that describes a relevant location in the subject of a particular result</rdfs:comment>
<chaals> </rdfs:Class>
SA: move to next point, return later
... added 'software' class - without discussion on list. OK?
CMN: not sure how define things like flash or
other content builders
... some specs may not be on the web
SA: everything in spec we will need
implementations and tests
... can live for now with one class of web content
general agreement
SA: assertor class -------
... there are no sub classes of these
CMN: big point of discussion
... bad manners to redefine other people's terms
... first person should not be assertor
... discussion regarding tool being assertor
... no point in defining person at all
Jim: leave person out
CMN: "tools" class - nervous about adding
SA: properties of assertor --------
<chaals> [because there are then potentially two kinds of tools - one that does tests and one that gets tested, and if people mix them up you get some very nasty modelling errors]
SA: different properties for person as opposed
to tools?
... collapse into one type of assertor?
CMN: they have different properties
... questions whether they should be sub classes of assertor
<JibberJim> foaf:Agent actually which probably does apply to tools
CMN: unless we have additional things to say about it we don't need to redefine it
Jim: don't drop tool completly. But things like foaf are already defined so we can reuse.
SA: will flag and come back
CMN: claim may be different depending on agent - uses Bobby & APrompt as examples
Niq: different type of assertion - automatic and with person
CMN: same as HERA, some assertions by person alone, some with help from HERA
SA: uncomfortable dropping EARL "person" just to provide difference
<niq> assertor = {person?, tool*}
SA: should be explicit in schema - should say there are persons and there are tools
Jim: could also be a number of tools in combination, not just one tool
<chaals> so we would go for something like
<chaals> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Tool">
<chaals> <owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person" />
<chaals> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent" />
<chaals> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">A software agent rather than a Person</rdfs:label>
<chaals> </rdfs:Class>
Jim: allow for multiple tools
CMN: HERA uses multiple tools like W3C validator and other validators
SA: questions whether this is useful
CMN: gives example of how HERA uses multiple validators to provide result
SA: still questions - should each tool provide assertion?
CMN: even so no change to schema is required
SA: current model is one assertor and one result
CMN: should push people to be more descriptive
to describe what went into assertion
... would not say they are all assertors
... not all tools are assertors - could create nasty looking graph - "tools
are tools"
SA: how about defining person the same way?
CMN: we don't have anything unique to say about an EARL person
<chaals> CMN Tools are probably disjoit with foaf:Organisation too (another defined subclass of foaf:Agent if I recall correctly
SA: action - will update proposals and send to
list
... thanks Jim for sending fuzzy pointers to list - will discuss next week