ERT WG

test subjects is a local file

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Oct/0000

JK: may be able to use "test subject" class otherwise can use "file content" class.

SAZ: recalls Charles saying we could use "test subject" class which is well formed URI but is not unique

<JohannesK> file://mycompi.mydomain.org/tmp/file.txt

SAZ: could give "test subject" a unique ID

JK: can use IP number instead of "file:..." if IP is static

SAZ: although may not have an IP number at all
... is it important to store content of file?

JK: yes, especially if file is not public
... file content needs to go into report if file is not public

SAZ: proposal is to change "http body" in this content

JK: but "http body" does not have a domain yet and could be used anywhere if we change comment

SA: not good to change vocabulary because it should be stand alone

JK: we could create the propery in a namespace (e.g. "content") and extent "http body" property so "http body" is derived from it.
... the benefit is that we have "http body" property in proper vocabulary

SAZ: We have property to store URI and can put filename in there. But what are our needs?

JK: In RDF we need unique identifier for resource but not for property and we need that and to be unique.
... Filename is a label for stored content.
... We need something for storing non-public content.
... We could use something like "body" property from HTTP. Could use as-is and then change describing stuff or could create another property and extend it.
... Could use in "test subject" but what to do when we test source code in various forms?
... May not need "file content" class.

SAZ: Wonders what are disadvantages of creating "file content" class??

<JohannesK> http:body rdfs:subPropertyOf foo:base64Content

<JohannesK> TestSubject has property foo:base64Content

SAZ: If "file content" class we can recommend using properties like "file name" etc.

<shadi> earl:filesource rdfs:subPropertyOf foo:base64Content

<shadi> ...in earl:FileContent classes

SAZ: Can still use generic properties and still use specific sub-properties.
... Thinks that "file content" class has it's own uses.
... If no other comments will leave for now as we're a small group today.
... No hearing strong feelings for or against proposal so let stew.

using rdf:about and/or uri:uri in WebContent

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Sep/0056

JK: Could use "node" property in RDF.

SAZ: We could still propose to use it our way.

JK: uri:uri is part of HTTP request so if not there as property then somethink is missing.

SAZ: It's still there - as part of HTTP request although request is optional. So we have additional uri:uri property.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/#webcontent

JK: I'm OK with just using RDF: about.

<shadi> "Term for URI"

JK and SAZ: Do not need uri:uri because we can use rdf: about.

<shadi> earl:filename rdfs:subPropertyOf uri:uri

<davidr> yes

SAZ: Everyone agree we don't need uri:uri in property class?

<davidr> far more intuitive

resolution: Drop uri:uri in webcontent class.

location of "Extensibility" section

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-EARL10-Schema-20060927/#extensibility

SAZ: Extensibility section not relavent to schema. Should be in EARL guide, not in schema.

<JohannesK> +1

<davidr> agree

Resolution: Move extensibility section from schema to EARL guide.

location of "Schema" appendix

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-EARL10-Schema-20060927/#schema-rdf

SAZ: RDF itself does not have it inside the doc but others (like FOAF) do have it inside.

JK: But they don't include the RDF schema in the spec.
... Don't have strong feelings but can be seperate or include in spec itself.

prepare for reviewing "HTTP Vocabulary in RDF"

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20060705

SAZ: This doc will be a "note" not a "recommendation".
... Asks that everyone read it.