Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema

This document describes the formal schema of the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0. EARL is a vocabulary, the terms of which are defined across a set of specifications and technical notes, and that is used to describe test results. The primary motivation for developing this vocabulary is to facilitate the exchange of test results between Web accessibility evaluation tools in a vendor-neutral and platform-independent format. It also provides reusable terms for generic quality assurance and validation purposes.

Status of this document

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/.

This 29 October 2009 Last Call Working Draft of the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema is an update of the previous EARL 1.0 Working Draft of 28 April 2009. It meets the requirements specified in the Requirements for the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0, and incorporates all comments received. In particular, this draft implements the decisions of the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) at its face to face meeting in November 2008, and addresses comments received on the stabilization Working Draft of 28 April 2009. This document is intended to be published and maintained as a W3C Recommendation after review and refinement.

The Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) believes to have addressed all issues brought forth through previous Working Draft iterations. The Working Group encourages feedback about this document, Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema, by developers and researchers who have interest in software-supported evaluation and validation of Web sites, and by developers and researchers who have interest in Semantic Web technologies for content description, annotation, and adaptation. In particular, the Working Group is looking for feedback on the following items which are also highlighted within the document:

Adoption of foaf:Document as a further refinement for earl:TestSubject (see Editor's note 1)
Providing both subclasses an instances for earl:OutcomeValue, to allow controlled extensibility (see Editor's note 2)
Replacing or partially replacing earl:Software with terms from the DOAP vocabulary (see Editor's note 3)
Structure, clarity, and requirements defined by the entire conformance section (see Editor's note 4)

Please send comments on this Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema document by 30 November 2009 to public-earl10-comments@w3.org (publicly visible mailing list archive).

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 has been produced by the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) as part of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Technical Activity.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; 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) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

1. Introduction

The Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) defines a vocabulary for expressing test results. It enables any person, software application, or organization to assert test results for any test subject tested against any set of criteria. The test subject might be a Web site, an authoring tool, a user agent, or some other entity. The set of criteria may be accessibility guidelines, formal grammars, or other types of quality assurance requirements. Thus, EARL is flexible with regard to the contexts in which it can be applied.

This document provides the core schema of EARL. Other parts of the EARL suite of specifications include:

EARL is not a comprehensive vocabulary for describing test procedures, test criteria, or test requirements but, rather, for describing the outcomes from such testing. EARL can be supplemented by test description vocabularies or other vocabularies for different aspects of the testing cycle.

1.1. Audience of this Document

The assumed audience of this specification is developers who are implementing EARL in software or processes, or those who are seeking to understand the ideas, models, or properties and classes used in the EARL vocabulary. Readers who would like more introductory material for the language with explanation of its foreseen use cases are referred to the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Guide.

This document assumes that the reader is familiar with the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and can read its XML serialization. Readers who wish to understand more about RDF should read a general introduction or the RDF Primer [RDF-PRIMER].

1.2. Document conventions

Keywords

The keywords must, required, recommended, should, may, and optional in this document are used in accordance with RFC 2119 [RFC 2119].

Namespaces

The RDF representation of the vocabulary defined by this document uses the namespace http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#. The prefix earl is used throughout this document to denote this namespace. Other prefixes used throughout this document include:

2. Classes

This section describes the classes defined by this document. Every test result in EARL is expressed as an assertion. An EARL Assertion contains the following information:

EARL provides flexibility to describe different types of assertions, such as those carried out by automated testing tools or by human evaluators, or those made about generic testing requirements or specific test cases.

Examples

Example 2: A software application carries out automated validation of a Web page against a technical specification.

Assertor: The W3C Markup Validator located at http://validator.w3.org/
Test Subject: The XHTML returned from a GET request to the URI http://www.example.org/page.html at 2004-04-14T14:00:04+1000
Test Criterion: The validity of the XHTML code
Test Result: Failed, the <li> element on line 53, char 7 was not closed.

Assertor - an entity such as a person, a software tool, an organization, or any other grouping that carries out a test collectively.

Related Classes

Rather than specifying only an earl:Assertor type, it is recommended that one of the following types be employed in addition:

Related Properties

It is recommended to provide additional information about the Assertor by using the following properties from external vocabularies:

Examples

2.3. TestSubject Class

Test Subject - the class of things that have been tested against some test criterion.

Related Classes

Rather than specifying only an earl:TestSubject type, it is recommended that one of the following types be employed in addition:

Related Properties

It is recommended to provide additional information about the Test Subject by using the following properties from external vocabularies:

Examples

Example 7: A group of resources that have been tested together as a single test subject.

<earl:TestSubject rdf:about="http://www.example.org/">
  <dct:title xml:lang="en">example.org Web site</dct:title> 
  <dct:description xml:lang="en">Each page on the example.org Web site</dct:description> 
  <dct:hasPart rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/style.css"/> 
  <dct:hasPart rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/page1.html"/> 
  <dct:hasPart rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/page2.html"/> 
  <dct:hasPart rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/image1.png"/> 
  <dct:hasPart rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/image2.png"/> 
</earl:TestSubject>

2.4. TestCriterion Class

Test Criterion - a testable statement, usually one that can be passed or failed. It is a super class for all types of tests including things such as validation requirements, code test cases, checkpoints from guidelines such as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WCAG], or others.

Related Classes

Rather than specifying only an earl:TestCriterion type, it is recommended that one of the following types be employed in addition:

Related Properties

It is recommended to provide additional information about the Test Subject by using the following properties from external vocabularies:

Examples

2.5. TestResult Class

Test Result - the actual result of performing the test. It includes both machine-readable values as well as human-readable description of the results (typically error messages).

Related Properties

It is recommended to provide additional information about the Test Result by using the following properties from external vocabularies:

Examples

Example 9: A test result with a validity of fail and a description of the problem in English, and encoded in XHTML format.

<earl:TestResult rdf:about="#result">
  <earl:outcome rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#failed"/>
  <dct:title xml:lang="en">Invalid Markup (code #353)</dct:title>
  <dct:description rdf:parseType="Literal" xml:lang="en">
    <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
      <p>The <code>table</code> element is not allowed to appear
        inside a <code>p</code> element</p>
    </div>
  </dct:description>
  <earl:pointer rdf:resource="#pointer"/>
  <earl:info rdf:parseType="Literal" xml:lang="en">
    <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
      <p>It seems the <code>p</code> element has not been closed</p>
    </div>
  </earl:info>
</earl:TestResult>

2.6. TestMode Class

Test Mode - describes how a test was carried out. It reflects the information provided by the Assertor and is used to simplify some commonly used queries.

Related Instances

Where applicable it is recommended to use one of the following instances of earl:TestMode, to categorize the mode in which the test was carried out:

Related Properties

It is recommended to provide additional information about the Test Mode by using the following properties from external vocabularies:

Examples

2.7. OutcomeValue Class

[Editor's note 2: ERT WG is looking for feedback on its approach to provide both subclasses as well as instances for the OutcomeValue class. This approach has been selected to allow the creation of application-specific values (such as foo:nearlyPassed or bar:resultNeedsApproval), yet provide a basic level of categorization to facilitate the exchange and comparison of results from different applications.]

Outcome Value - a value or expression that describes a resulting condition from carrying out the test.

Related Instances

Where applicable it is recommended to use one of the following instances of earl:OutcomeValue, to categorize the outcome of carrying out the test:

Related Classes

In cases where it is necessary to create further instances of earl:OutcomeValue, it is recommended that one of the following types be employed in addition:

Related Properties

It is recommended to provide additional information about the Outcome Value by using the following properties from external vocabularies:

2.8. Software Class

[Editor's note 3: ERT WG is considering the use of DOAP terms to describe Software in place of this term. Feedback on this consideration is welcome.]

A Software is any piece of software such as an authoring tool, browser, or evaluation tool. It can be used to describe an Assertor, such as a validation or other quality assurance tool, and it can be used to describe a Test Subject (for example to test compliance of an authoring tool to Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines [ATAG] or of a browser to User Agent Accessibility Guidelines [UAAG]).

Related Properties

It is recommended to provide information about the Software by using the following properties from external vocabularies:

Examples

3. Properties

This section describes the properties defined by this document. EARL also uses properties from external vocabularies to provide additional information where necessary.

3.1. assertedBy Property

3.2. subject Property

3.3. test Property

3.4. result Property

3.5. mode Property

3.6. mainAssertor Property

Main Assertor - the assertor that is primarily responsible for performing the test. It is a refinement of the term foaf:member defined by [FOAF].

3.7. outcome Property

3.8. pointer Property

Pointer - the location within a test subject that are most relevant to a test result.

3.9. info Property

4. Conformance

The following entities can conform to the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL):

Each of these entities can conform to EARL at one of the following conformance levels:

4.1. Conforming Reports

EARL 1.0 Core Reports

Valid reasons for not adhering to should requirements can include situations in which the EARL Producers have no information available to generate such terms, or if generating such terms poses substantial conflicts such as a reduced efficacy of the application, or privacy or security hazards.

Note: subclasses or subproperties of terms share the same type. They are therefore considered to be equivalent entities in adhering to any of the above requirements. Also, instances in multiple languages of the same entity (such as a title, description, or homepage) are considered to be a single occurrence of the entity.

EARL 1.0 HTTP Reports

EARL 1.0 Pointers Reports

EARL 1.0 Full Reports

4.2. Conforming Producers

EARL 1.0 Core Producers

EARL 1.0 HTTP Producers

EARL 1.0 Pointers Producers

EARL 1.0 Full Producers

4.2. Conforming Consumers

EARL 1.0 Core Consumers

EARL 1.0 HTTP Consumers

EARL 1.0 Pointers Consumers

EARL 1.0 Full Consumers

4.4. Partial Conformance

EARL Reports, EARL Producers, or EARL Consumers are partially conformant to EARL 1.0 when they conform to complete sub-sets of the Evaluation and Report Language. This includes:

The purpose of partial conformance is to facilitate the exchange of EARL data between software or software components to support the production or the consumption of conforming EARL reports. Vocabularies and software that use EARL or parts of EARL for other purposes than the exchange of test results must not claim any level of conformance to EARL.

Appendix A: Terms

This section summarizes the terms defined and used by this EARL 1.0 Schema specification.

Classes

EARL 1.0 Classes
Class Name	Label	Comment	Refinements	Related Properties
`earl:Assertion`	Assertion	a statement that embodies the results of a test	-	`earl:assertedBy` `earl:subject` `earl:test` `earl:result` `earl:mode`
`earl:Assertor`	Assertor	an entity such as a person, a software tool, an organization, or any other grouping that carries out a test collectively	`earl:Software` `foaf:Agent` `foaf:Person` `foaf:Organization` `foaf:Group`	`earl:assertedBy` `earl:mainAssertor` `dct:title` `dct:description` `foaf:name` `foaf:firstName` `foaf:surname` `foaf:nick` `foaf:mbox` `foaf:mbox_sha1sum` `foaf:homepage` `foaf:member`
`earl:TestSubject`	Test Subject	the class of things that have been tested against some test criterion	`earl:Software` `cnt:Content` `http:Response` `foaf:Document`	`earl:subject` `dct:title` `dct:description` `dct:date` `dct:hasPart` `dct:isPartOf`
`earl:TestCriterion`	Test Criterion	a testable statement, usually one that can be passed or failed	`earl:TestRequirement` `earl:TestCase`	`earl:test` `dct:title` `dct:description` `dct:hasPart` `dct:isPartOf`
`earl:TestRequirement` (subclass of `earl:TestCriterion`)	Test Requirement	a higher-level requirement that is tested by executing one or more sub-tests	-	`earl:test` `dct:title` `dct:description` `dct:hasPart` `dct:isPartOf`
`earl:TestCase` (subclass of `earl:TestCriterion`)	Test Case	an atomic test, usually one that is a partial test for a requirement	-	`earl:test` `dct:title` `dct:description` `dct:hasPart` `dct:isPartOf`
`earl:TestResult`	Test Result	the actual result of performing the test	-	`earl:result` `earl:info` `earl:outcome` `earl:pointer` `dct:title` `dct:description` `dct:date`
`earl:TestMode`	Test Mode	describes how a test was carried out	-	`earl:mode` `dct:title` `dct:description`
`earl:OutcomeValue`	Outcome Value	a discrete value that describes a resulting condition from carrying out the test	`earl:Pass` `earl:Fail` `earl:CannotTell` `earl:NotApplicable` `earl:NotTested`	`earl:outcome` `dct:title` `dct:description`
`earl:Pass` (subclass of `earl:OutcomeValue`)	Pass	the class of outcomes to denote passing a test	-	`earl:outcome`
`earl:Fail` (subclass of `earl:OutcomeValue`)	Fail	the class of outcomes to denote failing a test	-	`earl:outcome`
`earl:CannotTell` (subclass of `earl:OutcomeValue`)	Undetermined	the class of outcomes to denote an undetermined outcome	-	`earl:outcome`
`earl:NotApplicable` (subclass of `earl:OutcomeValue`)	Not applicable	the class of outcomes to denote the test is not applicable	-	`earl:outcome`
`earl:NotTested` (subclass of `earl:OutcomeValue`)	Not tested	the class of outcomes to denote the test has not been carried out	-	`earl:outcome`
`earl:Software`	Software	any piece of software such as an authoring tool, browser, or evaluation tool	-	`dct:title` `dct:description` `foaf:homepage` `dct:hasVersion` `dct:hasPart` `dct:isPartOf`

Properties

EARL 1.0 Properties
Property Name	Label	Comment	Domain	Range
`earl:assertedBy`	Asserted By	assertor of an assertion	`earl:Assertion`	`earl:Assertor`
`earl:subject`	Subject	test subject of an assertion	`earl:Assertion`	`earl:TestSubject`
`earl:test`	Test	test criterion of an assertion	`earl:Assertion`	`earl:TestCriterion`
`earl:result`	Result	result of an assertion	`earl:Assertion`	`earl:TestResult`
`earl:mode`	Mode	mode in which the test was performed	`earl:Assertion`	`earl:TestMode`
`earl:mainAssertor` (subproperty of `foaf:member` )	Main Assertor	assertor that is primarily responsible for performing the test	`earl:Assertor`	`earl:Assertor`
`earl:outcome`	Outcome	outcome of performing the test	`earl:TestResult`	`earl:OutcomeValue`
`earl:pointer`	Pointer	location within a test subject that are most relevant to a test result	`earl:TestResult`	`ptr:Pointer`
`earl:info`	Info	additional warnings or error messages in a human-readable form	`earl:TestResult`	Literal

Instances

EARL 1.0 Instances
Instance Name	Title	Description
`earl:automatic` (instance of `earl:TestMode`)	Automatic	where the test was carried out automatically by the software tool and without any human intervention
`earl:manual` (instance of `earl:TestMode`)	Manual	where the test was carried out by human evaluators
`earl:semiAuto` (instance of `earl:TestMode`)	Semi-Automatic	where the test was partially carried out by software tools, but where human input or judgment was still required to decide or help decide the outcome of the test
`earl:undisclosed` (instance of `earl:TestMode`)	Undisclosed	where the exact testing process is undisclosed
`earl:unknownMode` (instance of `earl:TestMode`)	Unknown	where the testing process is unknown or undetermined
`earl:passed` (instance of `earl:Pass`)	Passed	the subject passed the test
`earl:failed` (instance of `earl:Fail`)	Failed	the subject failed the test
`earl:cantTell` (instance of `earl:CannotTell`)	Cannot tell	it is unclear if the subject passed or failed the test
`earl:inapplicable` (instance of `earl:NotApplicable`)	Inapplicable	the test is not applicable to the subject
`earl:untested` (instance of `earl:NotTested`)	Untested	the test has not been carried out

Appendix B: References

Appendix C: Contributors (Non-Normative)

EARL is the result of the work of many people over the past. The editors would particularly like to thank Wendy Chisholm, Sean B Palmer, and Daniel Dardailler, whose contributions have included editing the first versions of the EARL specifications, and Leonard Kasday who set the work in motion to develop EARL. The editors apologise for any names left out of this list, and will endeavour to rectify any errors noted in comments.

Contributors to this and/or previous Working Drafts

Shadi Abou-Zahra, Chrisoula Alexandraki, Shane Anderson, Myriam Arrue, Gabriele Bartolini, Giorgio Brajnik, Dan Brickley, Dan Connolly, Karl Dubost, Nick Gibbins, Al Gilman, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux, Nadia Heninger, Sandor Herramhof, Ian Hickson, Björn Höhrmann, Carlos Iglesias, Nick Kew, Johannes Koch, Jim Ley, William Loughborough, John Lutts, Charles McCathieNevile, Libby Miller, Tom Martin, Yehya Mohamed, Daniela Ortner, Dave Pawson, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Pierre Queinnec, Chris Ridpath, Romain Roure, Christophe Strobbe, Michael Squillace, Aaron Swartz, Olivier Thoreaux, Carlos Velasco, and Rob Yonaitis.