See also: IRC log
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0024.html
PA: comment makes sense
SAZ: let's look one by one
[[Assertor]]
http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/#Assertor
http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Guide/#EARL10Reports
SAZ: comment not really precise -- EARL 1.0
requires an identfying name which could be dc:title, foaf:name, or doap:name
... any issues with that requirement?
[none]
scribe: description is not required though,
because it may not be known
... same for TestSubject
... maybe could say "one identifier" rather than "identifying name/title"?
PA: conformance section looks clearer than in the comment
RESOLUTION: change "identifying name/title" to "identifyer" in conformance requirements 2.a, 3.a, and 4.a
[TestResult]
SAZ: requirement is dc:date and earl:outcome
(which in turn must have an identifyer and a description)
... additional information is only optional
... ok?
KV: agree
SS: agree
EG: don't see why we need consistency
[TestMode]
SAZ: provide pre-defined values for test mode
... if you define your own then you need to describe them
... for example, if a vendor uses foo:heuristic, they would need to
disambiguiate it
... title would be "heuristic" but also need a description of what that
means
<sinarmaya> yes
RESOLUTION: conistency does not make sense because every case has its own justification; some improvement of the wording will be made
<sinarmaya> yes
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0025.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/#TestCriterion
KV: it is clear, not sure what is requested
SAZ: TestRequirement is broader than "test
suite"
... could use TestRequirement to refer to test suites or other compound tests
that are not necessarily test suites
... or introduce "earl:TestSuite"
SS: test suite could contain a set of unrelated tests, while a test requirment is a set of related tests
<sinarmaya> uhmmm
SAZ: add test suite or not?
KV: maybe good to include because informative about what TestRequirement and TestSuite is
EG: can be a good idea because can be more flexible
RESOLUTION: introduce earl:TestSuite to mean a series of (related or unrelated) test cases
PA: TestRequirement can still be a combination of TestSuites and TestCases, right?
SAZ: yes, it is more generic
<cstrobbe> Sounds good to me.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0026.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0035.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/#OutcomeValue
http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/#TestMode
SAZ: OutcomeValue is likely to have gradients so
proposed sub-classes
... TestMode may not need the same level of specifity
KV: why these gradients?
SAZ: to maximize query-ability
KV: don't think we need it
(keep current approach)
CS: could keep it
<philipA> +1
RESOLUTION: keep as is because no use-cases are known for further subclasses of TestMode
SS: regrets for next week
[next meeting on 7th september]