Re: [tap] W3C Evaluation and Report Language (EARL)

That domain is registered to:

Registrant Name:Andy Armstrong
Registrant Organization:Hexten
Registrant Street1:Bridge End Barn
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Garrigill
Registrant State/Province:Cumbria
Registrant Postal Code:CA93DR
Registrant Country:GB
Registrant Phone:+44.01434381641
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:[email protected]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:34:06PM +0100, Steffen Schwigon wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Just saw this message which I did not see in the testanything nor the
> perl-qa lists. The testanything.org wiki is indeed not accessible. Maybe
> someone can help.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Steffen 
> 
> "Bruno P. Kinoshita" <[email protected]> writes:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > For the last three weeks or so, testanything.org has been down. I
> > tried pinging the tap mailing list, but got no response. Tried to
> > contact Test::More maintainer to see if he knew someone with karma to
> > update the web site but got no response so far.
> >
> > This is the last message I found in my inbox regarding TAP, so I
> > apologize beforehand for bothering you all :-)
> >
> > Does anybody know where I can find one of the testanything.org
> > administrators, please?
> >
> > Thank you in advance, and sorry for the trouble.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Bruno P. Kinoshita
> > http://kinoshita.eti.br
> > http://tupilabs.com
> >
> >
> >>________________________________
> >> From: Steffen Schwigon <[email protected]>
> >>To: Christophe Strobbe <[email protected]> 
> >>Cc: [email protected]; Shadi Abou-Zahra <[email protected]> 
> >>Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 6:25 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [tap] W3C Evaluation and Report Language (EARL)
> >> 
> >>Christophe Strobbe <[email protected]> writes:
> >>> Report Language (EARL) and a few related specifications. EARL's core
> >>> use case is reporting the results of accessibility evaluations of
> >>> websites (i.e. accessibility for persons with disabilities), but the
> >>> language itself is generic, so it can also be used in other
> >>> contexts. The language is based on RDF;
> >>> [???]
> >>> During our last call for comments, one of the reviewers asked the
> >>> working group if EARL duplicates TAP's efforts, or vice versa. The
> >>> working group thinks that this is not the case; we think that EARL
> >>> could be an alternative report format for TAP if a TAP consumer could
> >>> be written that produces EARL. For this reason, we thought it would be
> >>> interesting to contact you and to make sure we are aware of each
> >>> other's work.
> >>
> >>Thanks for sync'ing this back to us. I just skimmed through the specs
> >>and it was indeed interesting. As far as I understand from my (very
> >>short) skimming I think it's not that many duplication of effort as the
> >>main difference is a philosophical one.
> >>
> >>- EARL is similar to other W3C specs in respect to specifying a
> >>  comprehensive snapshot of known existing topics. For example, it
> >>  particularly covers all known HTTP methods (POST, GET, PUT, ???). That
> >>  enables it to build tools on top of it that sematically ???know??? what
> >>  the document is about.
> >>
> >>- TAP in contrast is about specifying test results, really just the
> >>  *result* focus without hard specification of the tested topic, i.e., a
> >>  single test has a ???description???, so someone reading it knows what it
> >>  is about but that part does not have a specification. 
> >>
> >>  For instance, a test about a HTTP method could have any description
> >>  from ???POST??? to ???that strange other method that I never remember but
> >>  always use when GET is not sufficient???.
> >>
> >>
> >>See [1] for some related discussion of this aspect.
> >>
> >>In this respect I think TAP is more like your RDF with some extensions
> >>from EARL to describe test success.
> >>
> >>That makes the use-cases of TAP and EARL a bit different: 
> >>
> >>- TAP allows to be produced by anything simple without toolchain
> >>  support, like embedded devices with nothing but a ???print??? function,
> >>  but you can not *sematically* evaluate results.
> >>
> >>- EARL seems to require more heavy toolchain support to produce but
> >>  allows more semantic result evaluation.
> >>
> >>Converting TAP to EARL is difficult. 
> >>Converting EARL to TAP is easy.
> >>
> >>On the evaluation of TAP I can point to TAP::DOM and Data::DPath, which
> >>provide a more structured approach to evaluate test results, see my ???TAP
> >>Juggling??? slides[2], page 30ff.
> >>
> >>Kind regards,
> >>Steffen
> >>
> >>
> >>Footnotes: 
> >>[1]  http://grokbase.com/p/perl.org/qa/2008/04/re-tap-l-user-supplied-yaml-diagnostic-keys-descriptive-version/11ymnpm2765ztojoinznq2lz5674
> >>
> >>[2]  http://www.amd64.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pub/yapc_eu_2011_tapjuggling.pdf
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>Steffen Schwigon <[email protected]>
> >>Dresden Perl Mongers <http://dresden-pm.org/>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>tap mailing list
> >>[email protected]
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >
> 
> -- 
> Steffen Schwigon <[email protected]>

-- 
                 Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
        Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
            .             .            .            .             .
Karen Etheridge, [email protected]       GCS C+++$ USL+++$ P+++$ w--- M++