15:51:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #er
15:51:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/09/20-er-irc
15:51:09 <JibberJim> Zakim, this will be ERT
15:51:09 <Zakim> ok, JibberJim; I see WAI_ERTWG()12:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
15:51:31 <JibberJim> Agenda+ Evidence Class
15:51:36 <JibberJim> Agenda+ Assertor Class
15:51:46 <JibberJim> Agenda+ Face-to-Face
15:52:01 <JibberJim> Meeting: ERT WG
15:52:35 <JibberJim> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/432EFADB.3040403@w3.org
15:52:43 <JibberJim> Scribe: Jim Ley
15:52:59 <JibberJim> Chair: Shadi Abou-Zahra
15:53:50 <JibberJim> What if we get another Shadi joining the group?
15:54:09 <shadi> :)
15:59:29 <ChrisR> ChrisR has joined #er
15:59:41 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG()12:00PM has now started
15:59:43 <Zakim> +Shadi
15:59:48 <niq> niq has joined #er
16:00:14 <shadi> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2005Sep/0008.html
16:01:53 <Zakim> +Sandor_Herramhof
16:02:18 <Zakim> +Jim_Ley
16:02:25 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:02:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:02:29 <Sandor> Sandor has joined #er
16:02:36 <niq> ipcaller is me
16:03:06 <JibberJim> niq - speak to us!
16:03:15 <shadi> zakim, ipcaller is really Nick
16:03:15 <Zakim> +Nick; got it
16:03:23 <shadi> zakim, ipcaller.a is really Chris
16:03:23 <Zakim> +Chris; got it
16:03:37 <shadi> regrets: Charles, Johannes
16:05:31 <JibberJim> Zakim, take up agendum 1
16:05:31 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Evidence Class" taken up [from JibberJim]
16:06:04 <JibberJim> SAZ: Evidence class, we've had some discussion on it before, see the minutes in the agenda email
16:06:34 <JibberJim> SAZ: Basic idea is that some assertions are purely based on other assertions rather than on tests
16:07:02 <JibberJim> SAZ: checkpoint 1.1 from WCAG you have to do several small tests, and based on the success of them all you can make an assertion on the overall checkpoint
16:07:12 <JibberJim> SAZ: Or because one fails, the checkpoint fails.
16:07:14 <CarlosI> CarlosI has joined #er
16:07:18 <niq> Zakim: +q to ask where earl:evidence lives
16:07:26 <JibberJim> SAZ: Assertions based on other Assertions
16:08:45 <JibberJim> SAZ: evidence is based of the assertions and a ruleset which describes the result.
16:09:01 <Zakim> +Jose_Manuel_Alonso/CarlosI
16:09:17 <niq> Zakim, +q to query logic of ruleset (AND/OR being obvious case in point)
16:09:17 <Zakim> I don't understand you, niq
16:09:19 <JibberJim> SAZ: ruleSet is a can of worms which could be scary for us to introduce
16:09:34 <Zakim> -Jose_Manuel_Alonso/CarlosI
16:10:04 <JibberJim> SAZ: No discussion yet on where it lives, either in the assertion or in the testcase
16:10:27 <Zakim> +Jose_Manuel_Alonso/CarlosI
16:10:50 <Zakim> -Jose_Manuel_Alonso/CarlosI
16:11:43 <JibberJim> NK: Where should it live? It seems to be what we've got called a Heuristic test, belonging in test case and is part of test case which makes evidence a poor name
16:11:47 <CarlosI> problems with the phone, working on it...
16:12:29 <JibberJim> SAZ: evidence would make testMode redundant
16:12:59 <niq> question is whether the proposal is to match [something] in testcase with [evidence] in assertion
16:13:09 <Zakim> + +34.98.439.aaaa
16:13:12 <JibberJim> SAZ: evidence is a misleading term perhaps.
16:13:45 <JibberJim> Zakim, +34.98.439.aaaa is really CarlosI
16:13:45 <Zakim> +CarlosI; got it
16:14:16 <JibberJim> NK: testCase says "such and such should be met" and the result says "yes/no/etc"
16:14:59 <JibberJim> q+ to agree with Nick, ruleSet appears to be a OWL description of a testCase, so just a special case of test.
16:15:45 <JibberJim> NK: If I have a tool that can't test validation, we can say that it meets such and such if it also validates.
16:15:46 <Zakim> -CarlosI
16:18:04 <JibberJim> JL: ruleSet is just another part of test, whereas evidence is valid for a result.
16:18:23 <JibberJim> NK: Do we need an evidenceOf ?
16:19:13 <JibberJim> SAZ: ruleSet can be taken out from evidence, as it's a testSubject
16:19:51 <JibberJim> NK: tough without chaals here
16:21:34 <JibberJim> SAZ: mine and JL's opinion we remove ruleSet
16:21:42 <JibberJim> NK: me too!
16:22:23 <JibberJim> SAZ: any concerns on removing ruleset?
16:22:27 <JibberJim> ALL: silence
16:22:40 <JibberJim> SAZ: Where should evidence go?
16:24:05 <JibberJim> SAZ: Is evidence of a result or an assertion?
16:24:21 <JibberJim> JL: Seems to be the result for me.
16:24:32 <JibberJim> NK: could be about either assertion or result
16:24:56 <JibberJim> SAZ: how is it different between compound and single assertions?
16:25:16 <JibberJim> NK: We could have seperate evidence on seperate parts of the whole.
16:26:06 <Zakim> + +34.98.42.aabb
16:26:25 <JibberJim> SAZ: evidence is a bad name, maybe earl:references or something is good to relate other things...
16:26:38 <JibberJim> Zakim, +34.98.42.aabb is really CarlosI
16:26:38 <Zakim> +CarlosI; got it
16:27:33 <JibberJim> NK: It doesn't really matter what we call it to where it goes.
16:28:07 <niq> zigackly
16:28:16 <JibberJim> SAZ: references/evidence need to be for something.
16:30:00 <JibberJim> JL: not anti it being anywhere but aren't too sure exactly what it would be pointing to.
16:30:09 <JibberJim> CR: no strong opinions where...
16:30:23 <JibberJim> CH: ditto
16:30:36 <JibberJim> SAZ: Not result, assertion
16:31:19 <JibberJim> SAZ: The assertion points to the other things that it's considered to arrive the result, the testCase, the subject, and other assertions.
16:32:43 <JibberJim> SAZ: the 2 options are in the assertion or result, with Assertion being the strong favourite.
16:33:08 <JibberJim> SAZ: Does everyone agree it makes sense to have an earl:evidence
16:34:07 <JibberJim> JL: sounds good to me, only where it should go is open until I've seen it in action.
16:34:24 <JibberJim> SAZ: Yep need to start looking how to query it - everyone go look!
16:34:30 <niq> then we can replace results with earl;verdict :-)
16:35:07 <Zakim> -Nick
16:35:09 <JibberJim> SAZ: Anything else on this, especially concerns?
16:35:36 <shadi> zakim, Chris is really Nick
16:35:36 <Zakim> +Nick; got it
16:35:53 <niq> yow, identity crisis!
16:36:05 <JibberJim> Zakim, close agendum 1
16:36:05 <Zakim> agendum 1, Evidence Class, closed
16:36:06 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:36:07 <Zakim> 2. Assertor Class [from JibberJim]
16:36:12 <JibberJim> Zakim, open agendum 2
16:36:12 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Assertor Class" taken up [from JibberJim]
16:36:32 <JibberJim> SAZ: YAY! Earl Schema was published
16:37:01 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:37:15 <JibberJim> SAZ: Assertor class, lots of open issues
16:37:21 <shadi> zakim, ipcaller is really Chris
16:37:21 <Zakim> +Chris; got it
16:38:21 <JibberJim> SAZ: list of possible properties aren't complete, line numbers etc. all need to go in, but the overall location class is the first step
16:38:42 <JibberJim> SAZ: either Simple or Complex Location
16:40:11 <JibberJim> NK: Zero or more of the various properties ?
16:40:34 <JibberJim> NK: If we have xpath and line/column and fuzzy etc. it's a bit odd to call it a single Locator
16:41:05 <JibberJim> NK: you really need both line and column (rather than just a column) to identify something, it's part of a compound line/column element.
16:42:03 <JibberJim> SAZ: if we have singleLocator it makes compoundLocator rather redundant - could give a maximum cardinality on it.
16:43:25 <JibberJim> NK: We have 2 things, where we want to say, this, this and that don't have an ALT attribute.
16:44:03 <JibberJim> NK: and we have another which is pointing to multiple things which are related 
16:44:11 <JibberJim> is case 2 - e.g. pointing to 2 links that don't have space between ?
16:44:42 <shadi> earl:Location (type simpleLocator) earl:XPath
16:44:54 <JibberJim> SAZ: Case 1 - a simple locator pointing to a missing ALT, which has an earl:XPath
16:45:19 <niq> xpath is also multivalued
16:45:35 <shadi> <earl:Location>
16:45:35 <shadi>   <earl:XPath>value</earl:XPath>
16:45:35 <shadi> </earl:Location>
16:46:40 <JibberJim> SAZ: this is a singleLocator with the XPath as a child of Location
16:47:09 <JibberJim> SAZ: You could have several of these for each image without an ALT for example
16:47:28 <JibberJim> SAZ: Alternatively, you can have a compoundLocator
16:47:34 <Zakim> -Nick
16:47:39 <niq> heh
16:47:43 <shadi> <earl:Location>
16:47:43 <shadi>   <earl:XPath>instance 1</earl:XPath>
16:47:43 <shadi>   <earl:XPath>instance 2</earl:XPath>
16:47:43 <shadi>   <earl:XPath>instance 3</earl:XPath>
16:47:43 <shadi> </earl:Location>
16:48:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:49:09 <JibberJim> SAZ: either we could repeat XPath 3 times, or 3 times the location classes
16:49:43 <shadi> <earl:Location>
16:49:43 <shadi>   <earl:Locator>
16:49:43 <shadi>     <earl:XPath>trigger 1</earl:XPath>
16:49:43 <shadi>   </earl:Locator>
16:49:43 <shadi>   <earl:Locator>
16:49:44 <shadi>     <earl:XPath>trigger 2</earl:XPath>
16:49:46 <shadi>   </earl:Locator>
16:49:48 <shadi>   <earl:Locator>
16:49:50 <shadi>     <earl:XPath>trigger 3</earl:XPath>
16:49:52 <shadi>   </earl:Locator>
16:49:54 <shadi> </earl:Location>
16:50:04 <niq> yeah, 3xXpath looks like a sensible contraction there, provided they don't get confused 
16:50:39 <JibberJim> SAZ: Within the location there are locator property which makes it a compoundLocator to distinguish the different types of XPath instances/triggers
16:52:01 <JibberJim> NK: an earl:Location with lots of locators inside deals with the compound case, that seems a little difficult to use
16:52:19 <JibberJim> SAZ: What do you want to say?
16:53:19 <JibberJim> NK: I'm not sure, that this allows me to say the relationships between the triggers.
16:54:40 <JibberJim> NK: the last one seems difficult to use.
16:54:51 <JibberJim> q+ what is the use case for the compoundLocator
16:54:57 <JibberJim> q+ to say what is the use case for the compoundLocator
16:57:24 <JibberJim> NK: Use case is pointing to e.g 2 links and saying there's no use case.
16:57:47 <JibberJim> er.. scratch that
16:58:02 <JibberJim> JL: Use case is pointing to 2 links and saying there's no whitespace between them e.g.
16:58:21 <JibberJim> JL: but is the relationship between the different parts clear so that tools can make sense of the different parts.
16:58:37 <JibberJim> NK: It depends on the testcase what the relationship between the elements are.
16:59:26 <niq> bah
16:59:46 <JibberJim> SAZ: Do we need to describe the relationship between the locator elements?
17:00:55 <Zakim> -Chris
17:01:06 <JibberJim> SAZ: I don't think it does, as I think a consumer of the earl can present the points that the test fail on, without needing to have it expressed in the earl itself.
17:02:01 <JibberJim> SAZ: Nick send some more explicit comments on the earl:locator Location compound stituation.
17:02:09 <niq> OK
17:02:21 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:02:22 <Zakim> -Jim_Ley
17:02:23 <Zakim> -Sandor_Herramhof
17:02:24 <Zakim> -Shadi
17:02:26 <Zakim> -CarlosI
17:02:27 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG()12:00PM has ended
17:02:28 <Zakim> Attendees were Shadi, Sandor_Herramhof, Jim_Ley, Nick, Jose_Manuel_Alonso/CarlosI, CarlosI, Chris, [IPcaller]
17:02:46 <JibberJim> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:02:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/09/20-er-minutes.html JibberJim
17:02:48 <niq> [ipcaller]++ :-)
17:03:00 <JibberJim> Zakim, bye
17:03:00 <Zakim> Zakim has left #er
17:03:03 <JibberJim> RRSAgent, bye
17:03:03 <RRSAgent> I see no action items