See also: IRC log
<shadi>
<shadi>
SAZ: open question
... try to go trough them
<shadi>
SAZ: draft version November 26th
... suggest to go top to down
... the introduction has changed a bit
... now is focusing on the document, audience and conventions
... some editorial changes too
... the overview of EARL classes has been moved here (section 2)
... does the format of 2.1 looks ok?
... the use this format to every other document
... using icons for links to external resources
... two open questions about TestSubject
... foaf:Document as possible Test Subject
... concerns from CI about its testing character
... shouldn't be a problem, not the first testing one, can check stability
MS: like the idea
CV: don't have a clear distinction between phisical or electronic documents
SAZ: that's fine
CI: great to have both classes of documents but would like to be able to distinguish between electronic and physical
<shadi> ACTION: check with Danbri on the status of foaf:Document, and suggest identifier to separate between electronic and physical documents [recorded in]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - check
<shadi> ACTION: shadi to check with Danbri on the status of foaf:Document, and suggest identifier to separate between electronic and physical documents [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-68 - Check with Danbri on the status of foaf:Document, and suggest identifier to separate between electronic and physical documents [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2008-12-17].
JK: suggest to use http:Response instead fo http:Connection because they are tipically tested
SAZ: would like to have both Request and Response because you want the Request information
JK: if you use Connection as test subject that
could be seen as the whole Connection passing the test
... you not only test the response Content, may be response codes, length or others
SAZ: any objection to change Connection with Response?
JK: maybe both Request and Response
SAZ: why not Connection?
... if you download a web page you may have several Request and Response pairs
MS: is there a use case where we want just the Request and not the Response?
<shadi> ACTION: shadi to consider adding a brief description under the "Related Classes" sections to describe the relationships; possibly referencing respective sections from the Guide [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Consider adding a brief description under the \"Related Classes\" sections to describe the relationships; possibly referencing respective sections from the Guide [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2008-12-17].
JK: we usually use cnt as Content namespace,
here repr is used
... Content in RDF reference is missing
<shadi> ACTION: shadi to change "repr" to "cnt" [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Change \"repr\" to \"cnt\" [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2008-12-17].
MS: not sure what to put in the title of an http:Connection
JK: there is no need to have a title in HTTP, must be in EARL subject
<cvelasco> I need to leave in two minutes ... sorry to have to leave earlier :-(
SAZ: thinks from the report user perspective
... the user just receives the title and the details may be hidden
... maybe need to think more about this
JK: agree to have a dc:title for subjects, but would object to have a dc:title in HTTP in RDF
SAZ: suggestion is to use dc:date in 2.3 for the resource fetching time and in 2.5 for when the test case was actually tested
CI: are they supposed to be optional?
SAZ: will keep an eye on this
... came to the conclusion the TestMode must be classes
... pending AI to check this approach with some semantic web people
... renaming of Outcome class to avoid confusion with the property
... there is a preference from CI to rename the property instead the class
... any other thoughts?
... then outcomeValue fro the property and Outcome for the class
... DOAP discussion is still open
MS: some comments about stability from CI on the list
SAZ: comment from MS about the short properties description