Input: [ID] 53 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Kathy Wahlbin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "Note: Websites using responsive design techniques (i.e. adapting the presentation according to user hardware, software, and preferences) as opposed to redirecting the user to a different location are not considered to be independent website versions". [Rationale] Clarify what is needed for evaluating responsive websites. [Resolution] Resolution: Add a section on "Websites using responsive design" under "Particular Types of Websites" to elaborate on the need to test the different adaptations and breakpoints using a variety of user agents (tablets, phones, etc.). Rationale: More information about responsive design is needed but adding it to this particular note will not be as useful. See also Eval TF minutes of 9 January 2014. [Suggested Change]

Output: "Note: Websites using responsive design techniques (i.e. adapting the presentation according to user hardware, software, and preferences) as opposed to redirecting the user to a different location are not considered to be independent website versions unless the site at the different breakpoints utilizes different code. In that case, the website at the different breakpoints could be considered as individual websites each for evaluation".

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 55 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "When a target website is defined for evaluation, it is essential that all web pages, web page states, and functionality within the scope of this definition are considered for evaluation". [Rationale] - [Resolution] Resolution: Change the note in the definition of "web page" to read "Web pages may include multimedia content, interactive components, and rich and mobile web applications. Web pages are not limited to HTML and can be PDF documents and any other format." Rationale: Explaining this point in the definition of the term "web page" has a more global impact throughout the document. [Suggested Change]

Output: should be made clear that also PDF and other formats have to be considered for evaluation and that not only HTML is meant

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 56 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "Examples of Websites". [Rationale] The case where the responsibility for content publishing of each department is distributed, is typical and relevant enough to be mentioned among the list of examples (even though is later dealt with in detail, in the discussion on websites with separable areas) [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: The reference to "organizational department" was removed because it was not immediately clear that it only applies to such cases where they are separable areas. [Suggested Change]

Output: Add another example corresponding to the website of an organization department.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 57 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "This includes (...) forms for online payments, and discussion boards, including when such parts originate from third-party sources". [Rationale] Make the information more explicit. [Resolution] Resolution: Move the second paragraph of the example to outside the example. Rationale: That would make the text part of the main section rather than of the example alone. [Suggested Change]

Output: Add this information outside the example as well.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 58 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "Example of Website Enclosure" and "Particular Types of Websites" sections. [Rationale] "Example of Website Enclosure" relies on the definition of "Website with separable areas" (included in "Particular Types of Websites"). [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: The term "separable areas" is not used anywhere in "Example of Website Enclosure". [Suggested Change]

Output: Exchange the order of these two subsections.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 59 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "Web applications will typically require (...) larger web page samples to reflect the different types of content, functionality, and processes." [Rationale] In my understanding, the amount of "different types of content, functionality and processes" does not depend on being a web application per se. On the contrary, if the same functions are offered through a static site and a dynamic web application, the same complexity should be expected. Besides, even some web applications are more homogeneous than static web sites, in that all the contents are generated from the same templates and scripts, and then a smaller sample is enough. Step 3 talks about "How interactive the content is", which is a much more objective foundation to determine that a sample should be larger, rather than just relying on the fact the functionality is provided through a web application. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: This section refers to web applications that "tend to be more complex and interactive" such as "webmail clients, document editors, and online shops". These *typically* tend to require larger samples. [Suggested Change]

Output: Check whether this is substantiated or just assumed.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 60 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "are each independent of one another in usage, where using one version does not require or depend on using another version of the website" [Rationale] clarify the wording. [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested. Rationale: Better language. [Suggested Change]

Output: "are independent of one another in use, that is, using one version does not require or..."

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 61 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "In this context evaluators often have easier access to the website developers and maintainers, the development environment and authoring tools, and the materials used for development." [Rationale] Being able to "get into the kitchen" eases accessibility evaluation. Not only is it a matter of snooping around development processes, but it also facilitates access to later stages. E.g. self-assessment may ease accessing restricted areas (which is unrelated to accessing development). [Resolution] Resolution: Change to "In this context evaluators often have easier access to the website developers and maintainers, the development and hosting environments, the authoring tools, and the materials used for development and maintenance." Rationale: Clearer meaning. [Suggested Change]

Output: "... and the hosting platform where the website is deployed".

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 62 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "Third-party evaluators typically use pure black-box testing and … Therefore it is more difficult, often impossible, to make conformance claims based on such an evaluation alone." [Rationale] First, black-box testing means 'no access to the internals of the software', instead of 'no access to the development environment (and authoring tools)'. Second, in the specific context of website evaluation accessibility, third-party evaluators usually do have access to a large part of the source code (e.g. HTML, CSS, Javascript), which even sometimes represents all the source code (e.g. in static websites, where there is no server-side scripting environment). Thus these tests are rather grey-box (or even white-box). Third, WCAG success criteria are defined from the perspective of the end-user, so black-box testing should not be in principle excluded as a way to test conformance. For instance, the evaluator does not need to know whether device-independent scripting events have been used -i.e. black box-, they just need to check the functionality is available from a keyboard -white box-. [Resolution] Resolution: Change section to read "Third-party evaluators typically have little information about how a website was developed, its internal software, and all its areas and functionality. Therefore it is more difficult, often impossible, to make conformance claims for entire websites based on such an evaluation alone. However, such evaluation can be effective for validating conformance claims and statements about websites." Rationale: Clearer meaning. [Suggested Change]

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 63 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] in "Example of Web site enclosure", it is said that the scope of evaluation includes "aggregated and embedded content (...) including when such parts originate from third-party sources". Later on, in "Particular Evaluation Contexts", it is said that "third-party content is not under the control of the website or web service providers (...) non-conforming content needs to be clearly identified in the web pages in which it appears". [Rationale] The same term "third-party" is used for two different concepts that require two different approaches, this may confuse the readers. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: Section "Principle of website enclosure" states that all third-party content in scope must be included in the evaluation while section "evaluating third-party content" explains how to go about with this type of content; the sections do not contradict. [Suggested Change]

Output: Distinguish between these two uses of "third-party content". One refers to content integrated from external sources, but which is part of the scope, so as to consider complete processes. The other refers to user-generated contents, which can be either repaired or excluded from the scope through a statement of partial conformance.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 64 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] Bullet list under "Re-Running Website Evaluation". [Rationale] In the previous working draft, the phrases "as per step x.x" appeared at the end of each item. They have been removed to make the structure clearer, but at the same time the whole section has been shifted and now appears before the methodology steps. With the current wording, "exemplar web page instances" are mentioned before they are explained in the methodology. [Resolution] Resolution: Link to particular section 3.c Rationale: In the previous text all links lead to the same section (step 3), which wasn't really useful. That is why we took the links out. [Suggested Change]

Output: Add links from each item to the relevant steps.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 66 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] - [Rationale] Security and privacy issues may appear when following this methodology, and evaluators should be aware of that, so as to take whatever measures (out of the scope of WCAG-EM) they consider. Different kinds of standards usually add a section on potential security risks. In any case, not sure if it fits in "Particular Evaluation Contexts", or they should be added directly to Step 2 and Step 5.b respectively. [Resolution] Resolution: Add "Granting evaluators such access may require particular security and privacy precautions" to the corresponding note in Step 2, and a new "Note: Records of the evaluation specifics may include sensitive information such as internal code, passwords, and copies of data. They may need particular security and privacy precautions to secure." to section 5.b. Rationale: Better to address directly in the corresponding sections. further not role of document but of evaluator and evaluation commissioner to point to legal issues besides W3C legal and copyright notices. See also comment 41. [Suggested Change]

Output: Add an explanation of the security and privacy issues that may be involved when following this methodology.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 67 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Michael Cooper [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] - [Rationale] - [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: Both single pages and aggregated websites are in scope; the intent is to specifically address *any* type of website. [Suggested Change]

Output: Think it would be useful to add examples of what is *not* in scope, e.g., single pages, aggregated sites, etc.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] auto [Value for 'wrap-flow'] auto [Meaning]

Output: Depends on type of float (level-2 behavior)

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] left [Value for 'wrap-flow'] right [Meaning]

Output: Only wrap text around the right side

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] right [Value for 'wrap-flow'] left [Meaning]

Output: Only wrap text around the left side

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] top [Value for 'wrap-flow'] bottom [Meaning]

Output: In vertical text, only wrap text around the top side; otherwise same as auto.

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] bottom [Value for 'wrap-flow'] top [Meaning]

Output: In vertical text, only wrap text around the bottom side; otherwise same as auto.

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] start [Value for 'wrap-flow'] end [Meaning]

Output: Left or right, depending on 'direction' of containing block

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] end [Value for 'wrap-flow'] start [Meaning]

Output: Left or right, depending on 'direction' of containing block

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] none [Value for 'wrap-flow'] both [Meaning]

Output: Text flows on both sides

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] both [Value for 'wrap-flow'] none [Meaning]

Output: No text on either side

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] minimum [Value for 'wrap-flow'] maximum [Meaning]

Output: Text on the side with the most space (not yet well defined)

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'clear-side'] maximum [Value for 'wrap-flow'] minimum [Meaning]

Output: Text on the side with the least space (not yet well defined)

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Identifier] acceptTracking [Comment] The collected information may be tracked by the Assigner, or may link to a Party with the role function “trackingParty”. [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) accepts that the use of the Asset may be tracked

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group

Table 2.2.2: Terms for entity Action used with Duty


Input: [Identifier] attribute [Comment] May link to an Asset with the attribution information. May link to a Party with the role function “attributedParty”. [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) attributes the Asset to the Assigner or an attributed Party.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] compensate [Comment] The compensation may use different types of things with a value: – the thing is expressed by the value (term) of the Constraint name – the value is expressed by operator, rightOperand, dataType and unit [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) compensates the Assigner (or other specified compensation Party) by some amount of value, if defined, for use of the Asset.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] delete [Comment] Use a constraint to define under which conditions the Asset should be deleted. [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) permanently removes all copies of the Asset.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] ensureExclusivity [Semantics]

Output: The Assignee requires that the Assigner(s) ensure(s) that the permission on the Asset is exclusive to the Assignee.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] include [Comment] For example; Bio picture must be included in the attribution. Use of the Asset relation attribute is required [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) include(s) other related assets in the Asset.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] inform [Comment] May link to a Party with the role function “informedParty”. [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) inform(s) the Assigner or an informed Party that an action has been performed on or in relation to the Asset.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] nextPolicy [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) grants the specified Policy to a third party for their use of the Asset.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] obtainConsent [Comment] Used as a Duty to ensure that the Assigner or a Party is authorized to approve such actions on a case-by-case basis. May link to a Party with the role function “consentingParty”. [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) obtains explicit consent from the Assigner or a consenting Party to perform the requested action in relation to the Asset.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] reviewPolicy [Comment] Used when human intervention is required to review the Policy. May link to an Asset which represents the full Policy information. [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) has(ve) a person review the Policy applicable to the Asset.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] uninstall [Comment] The Asset is no longer accessible to the Assignee(s). [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) unload(s) and delete(s) the computer program Asset from a storage device and disable(s) its readiness for operation.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] watermark [Comment] It is recommended to embed a link to the watermark. [Semantics]

Output: The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) apply(ies) a watermark as provided by the Assigner to the Asset.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Name] boxdl [Unicode] U+2510 [Description] lower left quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT DOWN AND LEFT


Input: [Name] boxdL [Unicode] U+2555 [Description] lower left quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOWN SINGLE AND LEFT DOUBLE


Input: [Name] boxDl [Unicode] U+2556 [Description] lower left quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOWN DOUBLE AND LEFT SINGLE


Input: [Name] boxDL [Unicode] U+2557 [Description] lower left quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE DOWN AND LEFT


Input: [Name] boxdr [Unicode] U+250C [Description] lower right quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT DOWN AND RIGHT


Input: [Name] boxdR [Unicode] U+2552 [Description] lower right quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOWN SINGLE AND RIGHT DOUBLE


Input: [Name] boxDr [Unicode] U+2553 [Description] lower right quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOWN DOUBLE AND RIGHT SINGLE


Input: [Name] boxDR [Unicode] U+2554 [Description] lower right quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE DOWN AND RIGHT


Input: [Name] boxh [Unicode] U+2500 [Description] horizontal line [Aliases] HorizontalLine [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT HORIZONTAL


Input: [Name] boxH [Unicode] U+2550 [Description] horizontal line [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE HORIZONTAL


Input: [Name] boxhd [Unicode] U+252C [Description] lower left and right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT DOWN AND HORIZONTAL


Input: [Name] boxhD [Unicode] U+2565 [Description] lower left and right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOWN DOUBLE AND HORIZONTAL SINGLE


Input: [Name] boxHd [Unicode] U+2564 [Description] lower left and right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOWN SINGLE AND HORIZONTAL DOUBLE


Input: [Name] boxHD [Unicode] U+2566 [Description] lower left and right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE DOWN AND HORIZONTAL


Input: [Name] boxhu [Unicode] U+2534 [Description] upper left and right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT UP AND HORIZONTAL


Input: [Name] boxhU [Unicode] U+2568 [Description] upper left and right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS UP DOUBLE AND HORIZONTAL SINGLE


Input: [Name] boxHu [Unicode] U+2567 [Description] upper left and right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS UP SINGLE AND HORIZONTAL DOUBLE


Input: [Name] boxHU [Unicode] U+2569 [Description] upper left and right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE UP AND HORIZONTAL


Input: [Name] boxul [Unicode] U+2518 [Description] upper left quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT UP AND LEFT


Input: [Name] boxuL [Unicode] U+255B [Description] upper left quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS UP SINGLE AND LEFT DOUBLE


Input: [Name] boxUl [Unicode] U+255C [Description] upper left quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS UP DOUBLE AND LEFT SINGLE


Input: [Name] boxUL [Unicode] U+255D [Description] upper left quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE UP AND LEFT


Input: [Name] boxur [Unicode] U+2514 [Description] upper right quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT UP AND RIGHT


Input: [Name] boxuR [Unicode] U+2558 [Description] upper right quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS UP SINGLE AND RIGHT DOUBLE


Input: [Name] boxUr [Unicode] U+2559 [Description] upper right quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS UP DOUBLE AND RIGHT SINGLE


Input: [Name] boxUR [Unicode] U+255A [Description] upper right quadrant [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE UP AND RIGHT


Input: [Name] boxv [Unicode] U+2502 [Description] vertical line [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL


Input: [Name] boxV [Unicode] U+2551 [Description] vertical line [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE VERTICAL


Input: [Name] boxvh [Unicode] U+253C [Description] all four quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL


Input: [Name] boxvH [Unicode] U+256A [Description] all four quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL SINGLE AND HORIZONTAL DOUBLE


Input: [Name] boxVh [Unicode] U+256B [Description] all four quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL DOUBLE AND HORIZONTAL SINGLE


Input: [Name] boxVH [Unicode] U+256C [Description] all four quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL


Input: [Name] boxvl [Unicode] U+2524 [Description] upper and lower left quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL AND LEFT


Input: [Name] boxvL [Unicode] U+2561 [Description] upper and lower left quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL SINGLE AND LEFT DOUBLE


Input: [Name] boxVl [Unicode] U+2562 [Description] upper and lower left quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL DOUBLE AND LEFT SINGLE


Input: [Name] boxVL [Unicode] U+2563 [Description] upper and lower left quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE VERTICAL AND LEFT


Input: [Name] boxvr [Unicode] U+251C [Description] upper and lower right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL AND RIGHT


Input: [Name] boxvR [Unicode] U+255E [Description] upper and lower right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL SINGLE AND RIGHT DOUBLE


Input: [Name] boxVr [Unicode] U+255F [Description] upper and lower right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL DOUBLE AND RIGHT SINGLE


Input: [Name] boxVR [Unicode] U+2560 [Description] upper and lower right quadrants [Unicode Name]

Output: BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE VERTICAL AND RIGHT


Input: [Module] Measuring [Term Name] SensingDevice [Type] class [Definition]

Output: A sensing device is a device that implements sensing.


Input: [Module] Measuring [Term Name] SensorDataSheet [Type] class [Definition]

Output: A data sheet records properties of a sensor. A data sheet might describe for example the accuracy in various conditions, the power use, the types of connectors that the sensor has, etc. Generally a sensor's properties are recorded directly (with hasMeasurementCapability, for example), but the data sheet can be used for example to record the manufacturers specifications verses observed capabilites, or if more is known than the manufacturer specifies, etc. The data sheet is an information object about the sensor's properties, rather than a direct link to the actual properties themselves.


Input: [Module] Measuring [Term Name] observes [Type] property [Definition]

Output: Relation between a Sensor and a Property that the sensor can observe. Note that, given the DUL modelling of Qualities, a sensor defined with 'observes only Windspeed' technically links the sensor to particular instances of Windspeed, not to the concept itself - OWL can't express concept-concept relations, only individual-individual. The property composition ensures that if an observation is made of a particular quality then one can infer that the sensor observes that quality.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] Accuracy [Type] class [Definition]

Output: The closeness of agreement between the value of an observation and the true value of the observed quality.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] DetectionLimit [Type] class [Definition]

Output: An observed value for which the probability of falsely claiming the absence of a component in a material is ÃŽÂ², given a probability ÃŽÂ± of falsely claiming its presence.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] Drift [Type] class [Definition]

Output: A, continuous or incremental, change in the reported values of observations over time for an unchanging quality.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] Frequency [Type] class [Definition]

Output: The smallest possible time between one observation and the next.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] Latency [Type] class [Definition]

Output: The time between a request for an observation and the sensor providing a result.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] MeasurementCapability [Type] class [Definition]

Output: Collects together measurement properties (accuracy, range, precision, etc) and the environmental conditions in which those properties hold, representing a specification of a sensor's capability in those conditions. The conditions specified here are those that affect the measurement properties, while those in OperatingRange represent the sensor's standard operating conditions, including conditions that don't affect the observations.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] MeasurementProperty [Type] class [Definition]

Output: An identifiable and observable characteristic of a sensor's observations or ability to make observations.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] MeasurementRange [Type] class [Definition]

Output: The set of values that the sensor can return as the result of an observation under the defined conditions with the defined measurement properties. (If no conditions are specified or the conditions do not specify a range for the observed qualities, the measurement range is to be taken as the condition for the observed qualities.)


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] Precision [Type] class [Definition]

Output: The closeness of agreement between replicate observations on an unchanged or similar quality value: i.e., a measure of a sensor's ability to consitently reproduce an observation.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] Resolution [Type] class [Definition]

Output: The smallest difference in the value of a quality being observed that would result in perceptably different values of observation results.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] ResponseTime [Type] class [Definition]

Output: The time between a (step) change inthe value of an observed quality and a sensor (possibly with specified error) 'settling' on an observed value.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] Selectivity [Type] class [Definition]

Output: Selectivity is a property of a sensor whereby it provides observed values for one or more qualities such that the values of each quality are independent of other qualities in the phenomenon, body, or substance being investigated.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] Sensitivity [Type] class [Definition]

Output: Sensitivity is the quotient of the change in a result of sensor and the corresponding change in a value of a quality being observed.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] hasMeasurementCapability [Type] property [Definition]

Output: Relation from a Sensor to a MeasurementCapability describing the measurement properties of the sensor.


Input: [Module] MeasuringCapability [Term Name] hasMeasurementProperty [Type] property [Definition]

Output: Relation from a MeasurementCapability to a MeasurementProperty. For example, to an accuracy (see notes at MeasurementCapability).


Input: [media type] xml-stylesheet PI and link [text/html] recognized as HTML [text/xml] recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively [application/xml] recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively [application/xhtml+xml]

Output: recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively

XHTML media type test - results: Netscape Browser 8.0.2 (IE)


Input: [media type] link only [text/html] recognized as HTML [text/xml] recognized as XML, linked style sheet was not recognized and document tree was rendered [application/xml] recognized as XML, linked style sheet was not recognized and document tree was rendered [application/xhtml+xml]

Output: recognized as XML, linked style sheet was not recognized and document tree was rendered

XHTML media type test - results: Netscape Browser 8.0.2 (IE)


Input: [media type] xml-stylesheet PI only [text/html] recognized as HTML, xml-stylesheet PI was not recognized [text/xml] recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively [application/xml] recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively [application/xhtml+xml]

Output: recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively

XHTML media type test - results: Netscape Browser 8.0.2 (IE)


Input: [media type] without xmlns [text/html] recognized as HTML [text/xml] recognized as XML, parsing failed due to the omitted namespace declaration [application/xml] recognized as XML, parsing failed due to the omitted namespace declaration [application/xhtml+xml]

Output: recognized as XML, parsing failed due to the omitted namespace declaration

XHTML media type test - results: Netscape Browser 8.0.2 (IE)


Input: [media type] without DOCTYPE [text/html] recognized as HTML [text/xml] recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively [application/xml] recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively [application/xhtml+xml]

Output: recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively

XHTML media type test - results: Netscape Browser 8.0.2 (IE)


Input: [media type] without DOCTYPE and xmlns [text/html] recognized as HTML [text/xml] recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively and inline style (incorrectly) worked [application/xml] recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively and inline style (incorrectly) worked [application/xhtml+xml]

Output: recognized as XML, XHTML-specific semantics were not recognized but the type selector in style sheets matched case-insensitively and inline style (incorrectly) worked

XHTML media type test - results: Netscape Browser 8.0.2 (IE)


Input: [media type] Broken XHTML [text/html] recognized as HTML, well-formedness error was not detected [text/xml] showed blank page [application/xml] showed blank page [application/xhtml+xml]

Output: showed blank page

XHTML media type test - results: Netscape Browser 8.0.2 (IE)


Input: [media type] HTML 4 [text/html] recognized as HTML [text/xml] failed correctly while parsing the DTD [application/xml] failed correctly while parsing the DTD [application/xhtml+xml]

Output: failed correctly while parsing the DTD

XHTML media type test - results: Netscape Browser 8.0.2 (IE)


Input: [ID] 53 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Kathy Wahlbin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "Note: Websites using responsive design techniques (i.e. adapting the presentation according to user hardware, software, and preferences) as opposed to redirecting the user to a different location are not considered to be independent website versions". [Suggested Change] "Note: Websites using responsive design techniques (i.e. adapting the presentation according to user hardware, software, and preferences) as opposed to redirecting the user to a different location are not considered to be independent website versions unless the site at the different breakpoints utilizes different code. In that case, the website at the different breakpoints could be considered as individual websites each for evaluation". [Resolution] Resolution: Add a section on "Websites using responsive design" under "Particular Types of Websites" to elaborate on the need to test the different adaptations and breakpoints using a variety of user agents (tablets, phones, etc.). Rationale: More information about responsive design is needed but adding it to this particular note will not be as useful. See also Eval TF minutes of 9 January 2014. [Rationale]

Output: Clarify what is needed for evaluating responsive websites.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 55 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "When a target website is defined for evaluation, it is essential that all web pages, web page states, and functionality within the scope of this definition are considered for evaluation". [Suggested Change] should be made clear that also PDF and other formats have to be considered for evaluation and that not only HTML is meant [Resolution] Resolution: Change the note in the definition of "web page" to read "Web pages may include multimedia content, interactive components, and rich and mobile web applications. Web pages are not limited to HTML and can be PDF documents and any other format." Rationale: Explaining this point in the definition of the term "web page" has a more global impact throughout the document. [Rationale]

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 56 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "Examples of Websites". [Suggested Change] Add another example corresponding to the website of an organization department. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: The reference to "organizational department" was removed because it was not immediately clear that it only applies to such cases where they are separable areas. [Rationale]

Output: The case where the responsibility for content publishing of each department is distributed, is typical and relevant enough to be mentioned among the list of examples (even though is later dealt with in detail, in the discussion on websites with separable areas)

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 57 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "This includes (...) forms for online payments, and discussion boards, including when such parts originate from third-party sources". [Suggested Change] Add this information outside the example as well. [Resolution] Resolution: Move the second paragraph of the example to outside the example. Rationale: That would make the text part of the main section rather than of the example alone. [Rationale]

Output: Make the information more explicit.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 58 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "Example of Website Enclosure" and "Particular Types of Websites" sections. [Suggested Change] Exchange the order of these two subsections. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: The term "separable areas" is not used anywhere in "Example of Website Enclosure". [Rationale]

Output: "Example of Website Enclosure" relies on the definition of "Website with separable areas" (included in "Particular Types of Websites").

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 59 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "Web applications will typically require (...) larger web page samples to reflect the different types of content, functionality, and processes." [Suggested Change] Check whether this is substantiated or just assumed. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: This section refers to web applications that "tend to be more complex and interactive" such as "webmail clients, document editors, and online shops". These *typically* tend to require larger samples. [Rationale]

Output: In my understanding, the amount of "different types of content, functionality and processes" does not depend on being a web application per se. On the contrary, if the same functions are offered through a static site and a dynamic web application, the same complexity should be expected. Besides, even some web applications are more homogeneous than static web sites, in that all the contents are generated from the same templates and scripts, and then a smaller sample is enough. Step 3 talks about "How interactive the content is", which is a much more objective foundation to determine that a sample should be larger, rather than just relying on the fact the functionality is provided through a web application.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 60 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "are each independent of one another in usage, where using one version does not require or depend on using another version of the website" [Suggested Change] "are independent of one another in use, that is, using one version does not require or..." [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested. Rationale: Better language. [Rationale]

Output: clarify the wording.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 61 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "In this context evaluators often have easier access to the website developers and maintainers, the development environment and authoring tools, and the materials used for development." [Suggested Change] "... and the hosting platform where the website is deployed". [Resolution] Resolution: Change to "In this context evaluators often have easier access to the website developers and maintainers, the development and hosting environments, the authoring tools, and the materials used for development and maintenance." Rationale: Clearer meaning. [Rationale]

Output: Being able to "get into the kitchen" eases accessibility evaluation. Not only is it a matter of snooping around development processes, but it also facilitates access to later stages. E.g. self-assessment may ease accessing restricted areas (which is unrelated to accessing development).

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 62 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] "Third-party evaluators typically use pure black-box testing and … Therefore it is more difficult, often impossible, to make conformance claims based on such an evaluation alone." [Suggested Change] - [Resolution] Resolution: Change section to read "Third-party evaluators typically have little information about how a website was developed, its internal software, and all its areas and functionality. Therefore it is more difficult, often impossible, to make conformance claims for entire websites based on such an evaluation alone. However, such evaluation can be effective for validating conformance claims and statements about websites." Rationale: Clearer meaning. [Rationale]

Output: First, black-box testing means 'no access to the internals of the software', instead of 'no access to the development environment (and authoring tools)'. Second, in the specific context of website evaluation accessibility, third-party evaluators usually do have access to a large part of the source code (e.g. HTML, CSS, Javascript), which even sometimes represents all the source code (e.g. in static websites, where there is no server-side scripting environment). Thus these tests are rather grey-box (or even white-box). Third, WCAG success criteria are defined from the perspective of the end-user, so black-box testing should not be in principle excluded as a way to test conformance. For instance, the evaluator does not need to know whether device-independent scripting events have been used -i.e. black box-, they just need to check the functionality is available from a keyboard -white box-.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 63 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] in "Example of Web site enclosure", it is said that the scope of evaluation includes "aggregated and embedded content (...) including when such parts originate from third-party sources". Later on, in "Particular Evaluation Contexts", it is said that "third-party content is not under the control of the website or web service providers (...) non-conforming content needs to be clearly identified in the web pages in which it appears". [Suggested Change] Distinguish between these two uses of "third-party content". One refers to content integrated from external sources, but which is part of the scope, so as to consider complete processes. The other refers to user-generated contents, which can be either repaired or excluded from the scope through a statement of partial conformance. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: Section "Principle of website enclosure" states that all third-party content in scope must be included in the evaluation while section "evaluating third-party content" explains how to go about with this type of content; the sections do not contradict. [Rationale]

Output: The same term "third-party" is used for two different concepts that require two different approaches, this may confuse the readers.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 64 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] Bullet list under "Re-Running Website Evaluation". [Suggested Change] Add links from each item to the relevant steps. [Resolution] Resolution: Link to particular section 3.c Rationale: In the previous text all links lead to the same section (step 3), which wasn't really useful. That is why we took the links out. [Rationale]

Output: In the previous working draft, the phrases "as per step x.x" appeared at the end of each item. They have been removed to make the structure clearer, but at the same time the whole section has been shifted and now appears before the methodology steps. With the current wording, "exemplar web page instances" are mentioned before they are explained in the methodology.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 66 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Samuel Martin [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] - [Suggested Change] Add an explanation of the security and privacy issues that may be involved when following this methodology. [Resolution] Resolution: Add "Granting evaluators such access may require particular security and privacy precautions" to the corresponding note in Step 2, and a new "Note: Records of the evaluation specifics may include sensitive information such as internal code, passwords, and copies of data. They may need particular security and privacy precautions to secure." to section 5.b. Rationale: Better to address directly in the corresponding sections. further not role of document but of evaluator and evaluation commissioner to point to legal issues besides W3C legal and copyright notices. See also comment 41. [Rationale]

Output: Security and privacy issues may appear when following this methodology, and evaluators should be aware of that, so as to take whatever measures (out of the scope of WCAG-EM) they consider. Different kinds of standards usually add a section on potential security risks. In any case, not sure if it fits in "Particular Evaluation Contexts", or they should be added directly to Step 2 and Step 5.b respectively.

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [ID] 67 [Status] Closed [Commenter] Michael Cooper [Location] Scope of Applicability [Current text] - [Suggested Change] Think it would be useful to add examples of what is *not* in scope, e.g., single pages, aggregated sites, etc. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: Both single pages and aggregated websites are in scope; the intent is to specifically address *any* type of website. [Rationale]

Disposition of Comments - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 29 November 2013


Input: [Property] wp:signature [Definition]

Output: The value of this property is the signature to be used to authenticate the graphs with which the subject warrant is associated.

Provenance Vocabulary Mappings - XG Provenance Wiki


Input: [Property] swp:signatureMethod [Definition]

Output: The value of this property is the signature method by which the signature specified for the subject warrant was constructed.

Provenance Vocabulary Mappings - XG Provenance Wiki


Input: [Property] swp:digest [Definition]

Output: The value of this property contains a digest value for the subject graph.

Provenance Vocabulary Mappings - XG Provenance Wiki


Input: [Property] swp:digestMethod [Definition]

Output: The value is the digest method by which the digest value specified for the graph subject was constructed.

Provenance Vocabulary Mappings - XG Provenance Wiki


Input: [Property] swp:hasKey [Definition]

Output: The value is some kind of public key which belongs to the authority. The key is represented by an XML literal containing a XML Signature keyInfo element.

Provenance Vocabulary Mappings - XG Provenance Wiki


Input: [Property] swp:certificate [Definition]

Output: The value is the base64 encoding of a binary (ASN.1 DER) X.509 certificate containing the public key of the authority.

Provenance Vocabulary Mappings - XG Provenance Wiki


Input: [Attribute Type] CDATA [Definition]

Output: Character data


Input: [Attribute Type] ID [Definition]

Output: A document-unique identifier


Input: [Attribute Type] IDREF [Definition]

Output: A reference to a document-unique identifier


Input: [Attribute Type] IDREFS [Definition]

Output: A space-separated list of references to document-unique identifiers


Input: [Attribute Type] NAME [Definition]

Output: A name with the same character constraints as ID above


Input: [Attribute Type] NMTOKEN [Definition]

Output: A name composed of only name tokens as defined in XML 1.0 [ XML ].


Input: [Attribute Type] NMTOKENS [Definition]

Output: One or more white space separated NMTOKEN values


Input: [Attribute Type] PCDATA [Definition]

Output: Processed character data


Input: [0] type [2] yes [3] yes [1]

Output: ro attribute

Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic


Input: [0] target [2] yes [3] yes [1]

Output: ro attribute

Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic


Input: [0] currentTarget [2] yes [3] yes [1]

Output: ro attribute

Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic


Input: [0] eventPhase [2] yes [3] yes [1]

Output: ro attribute

Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic


Input: [0] bubbles [2] yes [3] yes [1]

Output: ro attribute

Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic


Input: [0] cancelable [2] yes [3] yes [1]

Output: ro attribute

Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic


Input: [0] timeStamp [2] yes [3] yes [1]

Output: ro attribute

Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic


Input: [0] stopPropagation [2] yes [3] yes [1]

Output: method

Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic


Input: [0] preventDefault [2] yes [3] yes [1]

Output: method

Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic


Input: [0] initEvent [2] yes [3] yes [1]

Output: method

Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic


Input: [Function] op:to [Meaning]

Output: Returns the sequence containing every xs:integer between the values of the operands.

XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators -- Review Version


Input: [Function] fn:id [Meaning]

Output: Returns the sequence of element nodes having an ID value matching the one or more of the supplied IDREF values.

XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators -- Review Version


Input: [Function] fn:idref [Meaning]

Output: Returns the sequence of element or attribute nodes with an IDREF value matching one or more of the supplied ID values.

XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators -- Review Version


Input: [Function] fn:doc [Meaning]

Output: Returns a document node retrieved using the specified URI.

XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators -- Review Version


Input: [Function] fn:doc-available [Meaning]

Output: Returns true if a document node can be retrieved using the specified URI.

XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators -- Review Version


Input: [Function] fn:collection [Meaning]

Output: Returns a sequence of nodes retrieved using the specified URI or the nodes in the default collection.

XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators -- Review Version


Input: [0] GET [LDP Resource = GSP graph] No conflict [LDP Resource = GSP endpoint] No conflict, GSP returns undefined [LDP Collection = GSP endpoint] No conflict, GSP returns undefined [LDP Collection = GSP graph]

Output: No conflict

Difference between revisions of "Linked Data Platform (LDP) vs SPARQL Graph Store HTTP Protocol (GSP)" - Linked Data Platform


Input: [0] HEAD [LDP Resource = GSP graph] No conflict [LDP Resource = GSP endpoint] No conflict; added LDP headers [LDP Collection = GSP endpoint] No conflict; added LDP headers [LDP Collection = GSP graph]

Output: No conflict; added LDP headers

Difference between revisions of "Linked Data Platform (LDP) vs SPARQL Graph Store HTTP Protocol (GSP)" - Linked Data Platform


Input: [0] OPTIONS [LDP Resource = GSP graph] No conflict [LDP Resource = GSP endpoint] No conflict; added LDP headers [LDP Collection = GSP endpoint] No conflict; added LDP headers [LDP Collection = GSP graph]

Output: No conflict; added LDP headers

Difference between revisions of "Linked Data Platform (LDP) vs SPARQL Graph Store HTTP Protocol (GSP)" - Linked Data Platform


Input: [0] PUT [LDP Resource = GSP graph] No conflict [LDP Resource = GSP endpoint] Conflict [LDP Collection = GSP endpoint] Conflict [LDP Collection = GSP graph]

Output: No conflict

Difference between revisions of "Linked Data Platform (LDP) vs SPARQL Graph Store HTTP Protocol (GSP)" - Linked Data Platform


Input: [0] POST [LDP Resource = GSP graph] No conflict [LDP Resource = GSP endpoint] Conflict [LDP Collection = GSP endpoint] Conflict [LDP Collection = GSP graph]

Output: No conflict? Different functionality is to be expected, but do not influence each other

Difference between revisions of "Linked Data Platform (LDP) vs SPARQL Graph Store HTTP Protocol (GSP)" - Linked Data Platform


Input: [0] DELETE [LDP Resource = GSP graph] No conflict [LDP Resource = GSP endpoint] No conflict [LDP Collection = GSP endpoint] No conflict [LDP Collection = GSP graph]

Output: No conflict

Difference between revisions of "Linked Data Platform (LDP) vs SPARQL Graph Store HTTP Protocol (GSP)" - Linked Data Platform


Input: [0] PATCH [LDP Resource = GSP graph] No conflict [LDP Resource = GSP endpoint] No conflict [LDP Collection = GSP endpoint] No conflict [LDP Collection = GSP graph]

Output: Conflict; changes through GSP can break consistency in LDPC

Difference between revisions of "Linked Data Platform (LDP) vs SPARQL Graph Store HTTP Protocol (GSP)" - Linked Data Platform


Input: [Module] Deployment [Term Name] Deployment [Definition] The ongoing Process of Entities (for the purposes of this ontology, mainly sensors) deployed for a particular purpose. For example, a particular Sensor deployed on a Platform, or a whole network of Sensors deployed for an observation campaign. The deployment may have sub processes, such as installation, maintenance, addition, and decomissioning and removal. [Type]

Output: class


Input: [Module] Deployment [Term Name] DeploymentRelatedProcess [Definition] Place to group all the various Processes related to Deployment. For example, as well as Deplyment, installation, maintenance, deployment of further sensors and the like would all be classified under DeploymentRelatedProcess. [Type]

Output: class


Input: [Module] Deployment [Term Name] deployedOnPlatform [Definition] Relation between a deployment and the platform on which the system was deployed. [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Module] Deployment [Term Name] deployedSystem [Definition] Relation between a deployment and the deployed system. [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Module] Deployment [Term Name] deploymentProcessPart [Definition] Has part relation between a deployment process and its constituent processes. [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Module] Deployment [Term Name] hasDeployment [Definition] Relation between a System and a Deployment, recording that the System/Sensor was deployed in that Deployment. [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Module] Deployment [Term Name] inDeployment [Definition] Relation between a Platform and a Deployment, recording that the object was used as a platform for a system/sensor for a particular deployment: as in this PhysicalObject is acting as a Platform inDeployment Deployment. [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Module] PlatformSite [Term Name] Platform [Definition] An Entity to which other Entities can be attached - particuarly Sensors and other Platforms. For example, a post might act as the Platform, a bouy might act as a Platform, or a fish might act as a Platform for an attached sensor. [Type]

Output: class


Input: [Module] PlatformSite [Term Name] attachedSystem [Definition] Relation between a Platform and any Systems (e.g., Sensors) that are attached to the Platform. [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Module] PlatformSite [Term Name] onPlatform [Definition] Relation between a System (e.g., a Sensor) and a Platform. The relation locates the sensor relative to other described entities entities: i.e., the Sensor s1's location is Platform p1. More precise locations for sensors in space (relative to other entities, where attached to another entity, or in 3D space) are made using DOLCE's Regions (SpaceRegion). [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Module] OperatingRestriction [Term Name] MaintenanceSchedule [Definition] Schedule of maintenance for a system/sensor in the specified conditions. [Type]

Output: class


Input: [Module] OperatingRestriction [Term Name] OperatingProperty [Definition] An identifiable characteristic of the environmental and other conditions in which the sensor is intended to operate. May include power ranges, power sources, standard configurations, attachments and the like. [Type]

Output: class


Input: [Module] OperatingRestriction [Term Name] OperatingRange [Definition] The environmental conditions and characteristics of a system/sensor's normal operating environment. Can be used to specify for example the standard environmental conditions in which the sensor is expected to operate (a Condition with no OperatingProperty), or how the environmental and other operating properties relate: i.e., that the maintenance schedule or power requirements differ according to the conditions. [Type]

Output: class


Input: [Module] OperatingRestriction [Term Name] SurvivalProperty [Definition] An identifiable characteristic that represents the extent of the sensors useful life. Might include for example total battery life or number of recharges, or, for sensors that are used only a fixed number of times, the number of observations that can be made before the sensing capability is depleted. [Type]

Output: class


Input: [Module] OperatingRestriction [Term Name] SurvivalRange [Definition] The conditions a sensor can be exposed to without damage: i.e., the sensor continues to operate as defined using MeasurementCapability. If, however, the SurvivalRange is exceeded, the sensor is 'damaged' and MeasurementCapability specifications may no longer hold. [Type]

Output: class


Input: [Module] OperatingRestriction [Term Name] SystemLifetime [Definition] Total useful life of a sensor/system (expressed as total life since manufacture, time in use, number of operations, etc.). [Type]

Output: class


Input: [Module] OperatingRestriction [Term Name] hasOperatingProperty [Definition] Relation from an OperatingRange to a Property. For example, to a battery lifetime. [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Module] OperatingRestriction [Term Name] hasOperatingRange [Definition] Relation from a System to an OperatingRange describing the normal operating environment of the System. [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Module] OperatingRestriction [Term Name] hasSurvivalProperty [Definition] Relation from a SurvivalRange to a Property describing the survial range of a system. For example, to the temperature extreme that a system can withstand before being considered damaged. [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Module] OperatingRestriction [Term Name] hasSurvivalRange [Definition] A Relation from a System to a SurvivalRange. [Type]

Output: property


Input: [Name] boxdl [Unicode] U+2510 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT DOWN AND LEFT [Description]

Output: lower left quadrant


Input: [Name] boxdL [Unicode] U+2555 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOWN SINGLE AND LEFT DOUBLE [Description]

Output: lower left quadrant


Input: [Name] boxDl [Unicode] U+2556 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOWN DOUBLE AND LEFT SINGLE [Description]

Output: lower left quadrant


Input: [Name] boxDL [Unicode] U+2557 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE DOWN AND LEFT [Description]

Output: lower left quadrant


Input: [Name] boxdr [Unicode] U+250C [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT DOWN AND RIGHT [Description]

Output: lower right quadrant


Input: [Name] boxdR [Unicode] U+2552 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOWN SINGLE AND RIGHT DOUBLE [Description]

Output: lower right quadrant


Input: [Name] boxDr [Unicode] U+2553 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOWN DOUBLE AND RIGHT SINGLE [Description]

Output: lower right quadrant


Input: [Name] boxDR [Unicode] U+2554 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE DOWN AND RIGHT [Description]

Output: lower right quadrant


Input: [Name] boxh [Unicode] U+2500 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT HORIZONTAL [Aliases] HorizontalLine [Description]

Output: horizontal line


Input: [Name] boxH [Unicode] U+2550 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE HORIZONTAL [Description]

Output: horizontal line


Input: [Name] boxhd [Unicode] U+252C [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT DOWN AND HORIZONTAL [Description]

Output: lower left and right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxhD [Unicode] U+2565 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOWN DOUBLE AND HORIZONTAL SINGLE [Description]

Output: lower left and right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxHd [Unicode] U+2564 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOWN SINGLE AND HORIZONTAL DOUBLE [Description]

Output: lower left and right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxHD [Unicode] U+2566 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE DOWN AND HORIZONTAL [Description]

Output: lower left and right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxhu [Unicode] U+2534 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT UP AND HORIZONTAL [Description]

Output: upper left and right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxhU [Unicode] U+2568 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS UP DOUBLE AND HORIZONTAL SINGLE [Description]

Output: upper left and right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxHu [Unicode] U+2567 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS UP SINGLE AND HORIZONTAL DOUBLE [Description]

Output: upper left and right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxHU [Unicode] U+2569 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE UP AND HORIZONTAL [Description]

Output: upper left and right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxul [Unicode] U+2518 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT UP AND LEFT [Description]

Output: upper left quadrant


Input: [Name] boxuL [Unicode] U+255B [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS UP SINGLE AND LEFT DOUBLE [Description]

Output: upper left quadrant


Input: [Name] boxUl [Unicode] U+255C [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS UP DOUBLE AND LEFT SINGLE [Description]

Output: upper left quadrant


Input: [Name] boxUL [Unicode] U+255D [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE UP AND LEFT [Description]

Output: upper left quadrant


Input: [Name] boxur [Unicode] U+2514 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT UP AND RIGHT [Description]

Output: upper right quadrant


Input: [Name] boxuR [Unicode] U+2558 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS UP SINGLE AND RIGHT DOUBLE [Description]

Output: upper right quadrant


Input: [Name] boxUr [Unicode] U+2559 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS UP DOUBLE AND RIGHT SINGLE [Description]

Output: upper right quadrant


Input: [Name] boxUR [Unicode] U+255A [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE UP AND RIGHT [Description]

Output: upper right quadrant


Input: [Name] boxv [Unicode] U+2502 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL [Description]

Output: vertical line


Input: [Name] boxV [Unicode] U+2551 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE VERTICAL [Description]

Output: vertical line


Input: [Name] boxvh [Unicode] U+253C [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL [Description]

Output: all four quadrants


Input: [Name] boxvH [Unicode] U+256A [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL SINGLE AND HORIZONTAL DOUBLE [Description]

Output: all four quadrants


Input: [Name] boxVh [Unicode] U+256B [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL DOUBLE AND HORIZONTAL SINGLE [Description]

Output: all four quadrants


Input: [Name] boxVH [Unicode] U+256C [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL [Description]

Output: all four quadrants


Input: [Name] boxvl [Unicode] U+2524 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL AND LEFT [Description]

Output: upper and lower left quadrants


Input: [Name] boxvL [Unicode] U+2561 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL SINGLE AND LEFT DOUBLE [Description]

Output: upper and lower left quadrants


Input: [Name] boxVl [Unicode] U+2562 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL DOUBLE AND LEFT SINGLE [Description]

Output: upper and lower left quadrants


Input: [Name] boxVL [Unicode] U+2563 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE VERTICAL AND LEFT [Description]

Output: upper and lower left quadrants


Input: [Name] boxvr [Unicode] U+251C [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL AND RIGHT [Description]

Output: upper and lower right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxvR [Unicode] U+255E [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL SINGLE AND RIGHT DOUBLE [Description]

Output: upper and lower right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxVr [Unicode] U+255F [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS VERTICAL DOUBLE AND RIGHT SINGLE [Description]

Output: upper and lower right quadrants


Input: [Name] boxVR [Unicode] U+2560 [Unicode Name] BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE VERTICAL AND RIGHT [Description]

Output: upper and lower right quadrants


Input: [Property] break-after [Initial] auto [Applies to] block-level elements [Inh.] no [Percentages] N/A [Media] visual [Values]

Output: auto | always | avoid | left | right | page | column | region | avoid-page | avoid-column | avoid-region


Input: [Property] break-before [Initial] auto [Applies to] block-level elements [Inh.] no [Percentages] N/A [Media] visual [Values]

Output: auto | always | avoid | left | right | page | column | region | avoid-page | avoid-column | avoid-region


Input: [Property] break-inside [Initial] auto [Applies to] block-level elements [Inh.] no [Percentages] N/A [Media] visual [Values]

Output: auto | avoid | avoid-page | avoid-column | avoid-region


Input: [Property] flow-from [Initial] none [Applies to] Non-replaced block containers. This might be expanded in future versions of the specification to allow other types of containers to receive flow content. [Inh.] no [Percentages] N/A [Media] visual [Values]

Output: | none | inherit


Input: [Property] flow-into [Initial] none [Applies to] All elements, but not pseudo-elements such as ::first-line, ::first-letter, ::before or ::after. [Inh.] no [Percentages] N/A [Media] visual [Values]

Output: none | [element|content]?


Input: [Property] region-fragment [Initial] auto [Applies to] CSS Regions [Inh.] no [Percentages] N/A [Media] visual [Values]

Output: auto | break


Input: [Definition] Character data [Attribute Type]

Output: CDATA


Input: [Definition] A document-unique identifier [Attribute Type]

Output: ID


Input: [Definition] A reference to a document-unique identifier [Attribute Type]

Output: IDREF


Input: [Definition] A space-separated list of references to document-unique identifiers [Attribute Type]

Output: IDREFS


Input: [Definition] A name with the same character constraints as ID above [Attribute Type]

Output: NAME


Input: [Definition] A name composed of only name tokens as defined in XML 1.0 [ XML ]. [Attribute Type]

Output: NMTOKEN


Input: [Definition] One or more white space separated NMTOKEN values [Attribute Type]

Output: NMTOKENS


Input: [Definition] Processed character data [Attribute Type]

Output: PCDATA


Input: [Identifier] acceptTracking [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) accepts that the use of the Asset may be tracked [Comment]

Output: The collected information may be tracked by the Assigner, or may link to a Party with the role function “trackingParty”.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] attribute [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) attributes the Asset to the Assigner or an attributed Party. [Comment]

Output: May link to an Asset with the attribution information. May link to a Party with the role function “attributedParty”.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] compensate [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) compensates the Assigner (or other specified compensation Party) by some amount of value, if defined, for use of the Asset. [Comment]

Output: The compensation may use different types of things with a value: – the thing is expressed by the value (term) of the Constraint name – the value is expressed by operator, rightOperand, dataType and unit

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] delete [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) permanently removes all copies of the Asset. [Comment]

Output: Use a constraint to define under which conditions the Asset should be deleted.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] include [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) include(s) other related assets in the Asset. [Comment]

Output: For example; Bio picture must be included in the attribution. Use of the Asset relation attribute is required

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] inform [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) inform(s) the Assigner or an informed Party that an action has been performed on or in relation to the Asset. [Comment]

Output: May link to a Party with the role function “informedParty”.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] obtainConsent [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) obtains explicit consent from the Assigner or a consenting Party to perform the requested action in relation to the Asset. [Comment]

Output: Used as a Duty to ensure that the Assigner or a Party is authorized to approve such actions on a case-by-case basis. May link to a Party with the role function “consentingParty”.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] reviewPolicy [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) has(ve) a person review the Policy applicable to the Asset. [Comment]

Output: Used when human intervention is required to review the Policy. May link to an Asset which represents the full Policy information.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] uninstall [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) unload(s) and delete(s) the computer program Asset from a storage device and disable(s) its readiness for operation. [Comment]

Output: The Asset is no longer accessible to the Assignee(s).

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] watermark [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) apply(ies) a watermark as provided by the Assigner to the Asset. [Comment]

Output: It is recommended to embed a link to the watermark.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] auto [Meaning] Depends on type of float (level-2 behavior) [Value for 'clear-side']

Output: auto

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] right [Meaning] Only wrap text around the right side [Value for 'clear-side']

Output: left

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] left [Meaning] Only wrap text around the left side [Value for 'clear-side']

Output: right

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] bottom [Meaning] In vertical text, only wrap text around the top side; otherwise same as auto. [Value for 'clear-side']

Output: top

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] top [Meaning] In vertical text, only wrap text around the bottom side; otherwise same as auto. [Value for 'clear-side']

Output: bottom

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] end [Meaning] Left or right, depending on 'direction' of containing block [Value for 'clear-side']

Output: start

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] start [Meaning] Left or right, depending on 'direction' of containing block [Value for 'clear-side']

Output: end

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] both [Meaning] Text flows on both sides [Value for 'clear-side']

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] none [Meaning] No text on either side [Value for 'clear-side']

Output: both

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] maximum [Meaning] Text on the side with the most space (not yet well defined) [Value for 'clear-side']

Output: minimum

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Value for 'wrap-flow'] minimum [Meaning] Text on the side with the least space (not yet well defined) [Value for 'clear-side']

Output: maximum

List of CSS features required for paged media


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) accepts that the use of the Asset may be tracked [Comment] The collected information may be tracked by the Assigner, or may link to a Party with the role function “trackingParty”. [Identifier]

Output: acceptTracking

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) attributes the Asset to the Assigner or an attributed Party. [Comment] May link to an Asset with the attribution information. May link to a Party with the role function “attributedParty”. [Identifier]

Output: attribute

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) compensates the Assigner (or other specified compensation Party) by some amount of value, if defined, for use of the Asset. [Comment] The compensation may use different types of things with a value: – the thing is expressed by the value (term) of the Constraint name – the value is expressed by operator, rightOperand, dataType and unit [Identifier]

Output: compensate

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) permanently removes all copies of the Asset. [Comment] Use a constraint to define under which conditions the Asset should be deleted. [Identifier]

Output: delete

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assignee requires that the Assigner(s) ensure(s) that the permission on the Asset is exclusive to the Assignee. [Identifier]

Output: ensureExclusivity

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) include(s) other related assets in the Asset. [Comment] For example; Bio picture must be included in the attribution. Use of the Asset relation attribute is required [Identifier]

Output: include

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) inform(s) the Assigner or an informed Party that an action has been performed on or in relation to the Asset. [Comment] May link to a Party with the role function “informedParty”. [Identifier]

Output: inform

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) grants the specified Policy to a third party for their use of the Asset. [Identifier]

Output: nextPolicy

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) obtains explicit consent from the Assigner or a consenting Party to perform the requested action in relation to the Asset. [Comment] Used as a Duty to ensure that the Assigner or a Party is authorized to approve such actions on a case-by-case basis. May link to a Party with the role function “consentingParty”. [Identifier]

Output: obtainConsent

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) has(ve) a person review the Policy applicable to the Asset. [Comment] Used when human intervention is required to review the Policy. May link to an Asset which represents the full Policy information. [Identifier]

Output: reviewPolicy

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) unload(s) and delete(s) the computer program Asset from a storage device and disable(s) its readiness for operation. [Comment] The Asset is no longer accessible to the Assignee(s). [Identifier]

Output: uninstall

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) apply(ies) a watermark as provided by the Assigner to the Asset. [Comment] It is recommended to embed a link to the watermark. [Identifier]

Output: watermark

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Dispatched when...] The user agent begins looking for media data, as part of the resource selection algorithm. [Event name]

Output: loadstart


Input: [Dispatched when...] The user agent is fetching media data. [Event name]

Output: progress


Input: [Dispatched when...] The user agent is intentionally not currently fetching media data, but does not have the entire media resource downloaded. [Event name]

Output: suspend


Input: [Dispatched when...] The user agent stops fetching the media data before it is completely downloaded, but not due to an error. [Event name]

Output: abort


Input: [Dispatched when...] An error occurs while fetching the media data. [Event name]

Output: error


Input: [Dispatched when...] A media element whose networkState was previously not in the NETWORK_EMPTY state has just switched to that state (either because of a fatal error during load that's about to be reported, or because the load() method was invoked while the resource selection algorithm was already running). [Event name]

Output: emptied


Input: [Dispatched when...] The user agent is trying to fetch media data, but data is unexpectedly not forthcoming. [Event name]

Output: stalled


Input: [Dispatched when...] Playback has begun. Fired after the play() method has returned, or when the autoplay attribute has caused playback to begin. [Event name]

Output: play


Input: [Dispatched when...] Playback has been paused. Fired after the pause() method has returned. [Event name]

Output: pause


Input: [Dispatched when...] The user agent has just determined the duration and dimensions of the media resource [Event name]

Output: loadedmetadata


Input: [Dispatched when...] The user agent can render the media data at the current playback position for the first time. [Event name]

Output: loadeddata


Input: [Dispatched when...] Playback has stopped because the next frame is not available, but the user agent expects that frame to become available in due course. [Event name]

Output: waiting


Input: [Dispatched when...] Playback has started. [Event name]

Output: playing


Input: [Dispatched when...] The user agent can resume playback of the media data, but estimates that if playback were to be started now, the media resource could not be rendered at the current playback rate up to its end without having to stop for further buffering of content. [Event name]

Output: canplay


Input: [Dispatched when...] The user agent estimates that if playback were to be started now, the media resource could be rendered at the current playback rate all the way to its end without having to stop for further buffering. [Event name]

Output: canplaythrough


Input: [Dispatched when...] The seeking IDL attribute changed to true and the seek operation is taking long enough that the user agent has time to fire the event. [Event name]

Output: seeking


Input: [Dispatched when...] The seeking IDL attribute changed to false. [Event name]

Output: seeked


Input: [Dispatched when...] The current playback position changed as part of normal playback or in an especially interesting way, for example discontinuously. [Event name]

Output: timeupdate


Input: [Dispatched when...] Playback has stopped because the end of the media resource was reached. [Event name]

Output: ended


Input: [Dispatched when...] Either the defaultPlaybackRate or the playbackRate attribute has just been updated. [Event name]

Output: ratechange


Input: [Dispatched when...] The duration attribute has just been updated. [Event name]

Output: durationchange


Input: [Dispatched when...] Either the volume attribute or the muted attribute has changed. Fired after the relevant attribute's setter has returned. [Event name]

Output: volumechange


Input: [Value] terminology [Example] The localization had “Pen Drive” when corporate terminology specified that “USB Stick” was to be used. The localized text inconsistently used "Start" and "Begin". A text renders the Hungarian term recsegőhid as “buzzer bridge” in English (a literal translation), but the term to be used in English is “wedge block,” as specified in a terminology list supplied to the translator. [Scope] S or T [Notes] This value is not intended for simple typographical errors or word choice not related to defined terminologies. For example, a mistyping of “pin” as “pen” or the use of “imply” instead of “infer” (mistaking two commonly confused words) would not count as terminology issues and is best categorized as either spelling errors or mistranslations, depending on the nature of the issue. Terminology refers only to cases where incorrect choices about terms (either formal or commonly defined in a domain) are involved. [Description]

Output: An incorrect term or a term from the wrong domain was used or terms are used inconsistently.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] mistranslation [Example] The English source reads "An ape succeeded in grasping a banana lying outside its cage with the help of a stick" but the Italian translation reads "l'ape riuscì a prendere la banana posta tuori dall sua gabbia aiutandosi con un bastone" ("A bee succeeded...") [Scope] T [Notes] Issues related to translation of specific terms related to the domain or task-specific language are to be categorized as terminology issues. [Description]

Output: The content of the target mistranslates the content of the source.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] omission [Example] One or more segments found in the source that have been intended for translation are missing in the target. After an alignment, a verification tool flags the pairs of aligned segments where the target has no corresponding source because of incorrect segmentation or some alignment issue. In such case the 'omission' type may apply to the source entry. [Scope] S or T [Notes] This value is not to be used for missing whitespace or formatting codes, but instead has to be reserved for linguistic content. [Description]

Output: Necessary text has been omitted from the localization or source.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] untranslated [Example] The source segment reads "The Professor said to Smith that he would hear from his lawyer" but the Hungarian localization reads "A professzor azt mondta Smithnek, hogy he would hear from his lawyer." [Scope] T [Notes] omission takes precedence over untranslated. Omissions are distinct in that they address cases where text is not present, while untranslated addresses cases where text has been carried from the source untranslated. [Description]

Output: Content that has been intended for translation is left untranslated.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] addition [Example] The translated text contains a note from the translator to himself to look up a term; the note ought to have been deleted but was not. [Scope] T [Description]

Output: The translated text contains inappropriate additions.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] duplication [Example] A section of the target text was inadvertently copied twice in a copy and paste operation. [Scope] T [Description]

Output: Content has been duplicated improperly.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] inconsistency [Example] The text states that an event happened in 1912 in one location but in another states that it happened in 1812. The translated text uses different wording for multiple instances of a single regulatory notice that occurs in multiple locations in a series of manuals. [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: The text is inconsistent with itself or is translated inconsistently (NB: not for use with terminology inconsistency).

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] grammar [Example] The text reads "The guidelines says that users should use a static grounding strap." [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: The text contains a grammatical error (including errors of syntax and morphology).

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] legal [Example] The localized text is intended for use in Thailand but includes U.S. regulatory notices. A text translated into German contains comparative advertising claims that are not allowed by German law. [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: The text is legally problematic (e.g., it is specific to the wrong legal system).

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] register [Example] A financial text in U.S. English refers to dollars as "bucks". [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: The text is written in the wrong linguistic register of uses slang or other language variants inappropriate to the text.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] locale-specific-content [Example] A text translated for the Japanese market contains call center numbers in Texas and refers to special offers available only in the U.S. [Scope] S or T [Notes] Legally inappropriate material is to be classified as legal. [Description]

Output: The localization contains content that does not apply to the locale for which it was prepared.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] locale-violation [Example] A text localized into German has dates in mm/dd/yyyy format instead of DD.MM.YYYY. A text for the Irish market uses American-style foot and inch measurements instead of centimeters. A text intended for a U.S.-based audience uses U.K. spellings such as “centre” and “colour.” [Scope] S or T [Notes] This value can be used for spelling errors only if they relate specifically to locale expectations (e.g., a text consistently uses British instead of U.S. spellings for a text intended for the U.S.). If these errors are not systematic (e.g., a text uses U.S. spellings but has a single instance of “centre”), they are instead to be counted as spelling errors. [Description]

Output: Text violates norms for the intended locale.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] style [Example] Company style guidelines dictate that all individuals be referred to as Mr. or Ms. with a family name, but the text refers to “Jack Smith”. [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: The text contains stylistic errors.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] characters [Example] A text ought to have a '•' but instead has a '¥' sign. A German text erroneously uses û, ô, and â instead of the appropriate 'ü', 'ö', and 'ä'. A Japanese text has been garbled and appears with Devanagari characters. [Scope] S or T [Notes] Characters ought to be used in cases of garbling or systematic use of inappropriate characters, not for spelling issues where individual characters are replaced with incorrect one. [Description]

Output: The text contains characters that are garbled or incorrect or that are not used in the language in which the content appears.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] misspelling [Example] A German text misspells the word "Zustellung" as "Zustlelung". [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: The text contains a misspelling.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] typographical [Example] An English text has the following sentence: "The man whom, we saw, was in the Military and carried it's insignias". [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: The text has typographical errors such as omitted/incorrect punctuation, incorrect capitalization, etc.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] formatting [Example] Warnings in the text are supposed to be set in italic face, but instead appear in bold face. Margins of the text are narrower than specified. [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: The text is formatted incorrectly.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] inconsistent-entities [Example] The name "Thaddeus Cahill" appears in an English source but is rendered as "Tamaš Cahill" in the Czech version. The date "February 9, 2007" appears in the source but the translated text has "2. September 2007". [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: The source and target text contain different named entities (dates, times, place names, individual names, etc.)

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] numbers [Example] A source text states that an object is 120 cm long, but the target text says that it is 129 cm. long. [Scope] S or T [Notes] Some tools may correct for differences in units of measurement to reduce false positives (e.g., a tool might adjust for differences in values between inches and centimeters to avoid flagging numbers that seem to be different but are in fact equivalent). [Description]

Output: Numbers are inconsistent between source and target.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] markup [Example] The source segment has five markup tags but the target has only two. An opening tag in the text is missing a closing tag. [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: There is an issue related to markup or a mismatch in markup between source and target.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] pattern-problem [Example] The tool disallows the regular expression pattern ['"”’][\.,] but the translated text contains "A leading “expert”, a political hack, claimed otherwise." A tool uses a regular expression to ensure that the content of an element is an IRI and flags what appears to be a malformed IRI. [Scope] S or T [Notes] Defining what is or is not an allowable pattern is up to the processing application and is beyond the scope of this specification. Best practice would be to use the Comment attribute to specify the pattern that led to the issue. [Description]

Output: The text fails to match a pattern that defines allowable content (or matches one that defines non-allowable content).

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] whitespace [Example] A source segment starts with six space characters but the corresponding target segment has two non-breaking spaces at the start. The text uses a run of 12 space characters instead of a tab character to align numbers in a table. Two space characters appear after a period even though only a single space is to be used. [Scope] S or T [Description]

Output: There is a mismatch in whitespace between source and target content or the text violates specific rules related to the use of whitespace.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] internationalization [Example] A line of programming code has embedded language-specific strings. A user interface element leaves no room for text expansion. A form allows only for U.S.-style postal addresses and expects five digit U.S. ZIP codes. [Scope] S or T [Notes] There are many kinds of internationalization issues. This value is therefore very heterogeneous in what it can refer to. [Description]

Output: There is an issue related to the internationalization of content.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] length [Example] The translation of a segment is five times as long as the source. [Scope] S or T [Notes] What constitutes a "significant" difference in length is determined by the model referred to in the locQualityIssueProfileRef. [Description]

Output: There is a significant difference in source and target length.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] non-conformance [Example] The sentence "The harbour connected which to printer is busy or configared not properly." would have poor conformance. [Scope] S or T [Notes] Non-conformance is determined through the use of multiple statistical measures of similarity to a corpus of known-good content. For example, in a system that uses classification techniques the poor conformance might be a function of combined incorrect terminology, wrong spelling and bad grammar, or other features as determined by the system. [Description]

Output: The content is deemed to show poor statistical conformance to a reference corpus. Higher severity values reflect poorer conformance.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] uncategorized [Example] A new version of a tool returns information on an issue that has not been previously checked and that is not yet classified. A text is defective in ways that defy categorization, such as the appearance of nonsense garbled text of unknown origin (e.g., a translation shows an unintelligible result and/or appears unrelated to the source material). [Scope] S or T [Notes] This value has the following uses: A tool can use it to pass through quality data from another tool in cases where the issues from the other tool are not classified (for example, a localization quality assurance tool interfaces with a third-party grammar checker). A tool’s issues are not yet assigned to values, and, until an updated assignment is made, they may be listed as uncategorized. In this case it is recommended that issues be assigned to appropriate values as soon as possible since uncategorized does not foster interoperability. uncategorized can be used where a portion of text is defective in a way that defies assignment to a value in either the originating system or in any other ITS localization quality markup to indicate that it is uncategorizable. [Description]

Output: The issue either has not been categorized or cannot be categorized.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] other [Scope] S or T [Notes] This value allows for the inclusion of any issues not included in the previously listed values. It is encouraged not to use this value for any tool- or model-specific issues that can be mapped to the values listed above. In addition, this value is not synonymous with uncategorized in that uncategorized issues may be assigned to another precise value, while other issues cannot. If a system has an "miscellaneous" or "other" value, it is better to map this to this value even if the specific instance of the issue might be mapped to another value. [Description]

Output: Any issue that cannot be assigned to any values listed above.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] terminology [Description] An incorrect term or a term from the wrong domain was used or terms are used inconsistently. [Example] The localization had “Pen Drive” when corporate terminology specified that “USB Stick” was to be used. The localized text inconsistently used "Start" and "Begin". A text renders the Hungarian term recsegőhid as “buzzer bridge” in English (a literal translation), but the term to be used in English is “wedge block,” as specified in a terminology list supplied to the translator. [Scope] S or T [Notes]

Output: This value is not intended for simple typographical errors or word choice not related to defined terminologies. For example, a mistyping of “pin” as “pen” or the use of “imply” instead of “infer” (mistaking two commonly confused words) would not count as terminology issues and is best categorized as either spelling errors or mistranslations, depending on the nature of the issue. Terminology refers only to cases where incorrect choices about terms (either formal or commonly defined in a domain) are involved.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] mistranslation [Description] The content of the target mistranslates the content of the source. [Example] The English source reads "An ape succeeded in grasping a banana lying outside its cage with the help of a stick" but the Italian translation reads "l'ape riuscì a prendere la banana posta tuori dall sua gabbia aiutandosi con un bastone" ("A bee succeeded...") [Scope] T [Notes]

Output: Issues related to translation of specific terms related to the domain or task-specific language are to be categorized as terminology issues.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] omission [Description] Necessary text has been omitted from the localization or source. [Example] One or more segments found in the source that have been intended for translation are missing in the target. After an alignment, a verification tool flags the pairs of aligned segments where the target has no corresponding source because of incorrect segmentation or some alignment issue. In such case the 'omission' type may apply to the source entry. [Scope] S or T [Notes]

Output: This value is not to be used for missing whitespace or formatting codes, but instead has to be reserved for linguistic content.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] untranslated [Description] Content that has been intended for translation is left untranslated. [Example] The source segment reads "The Professor said to Smith that he would hear from his lawyer" but the Hungarian localization reads "A professzor azt mondta Smithnek, hogy he would hear from his lawyer." [Scope] T [Notes]

Output: omission takes precedence over untranslated. Omissions are distinct in that they address cases where text is not present, while untranslated addresses cases where text has been carried from the source untranslated.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] locale-specific-content [Description] The localization contains content that does not apply to the locale for which it was prepared. [Example] A text translated for the Japanese market contains call center numbers in Texas and refers to special offers available only in the U.S. [Scope] S or T [Notes]

Output: Legally inappropriate material is to be classified as legal.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0


Input: [Value] locale-violation [Description] Text violates norms for the intended locale. [Example] A text localized into German has dates in mm/dd/yyyy format instead of DD.MM.YYYY. A text for the Irish market uses American-style foot and inch measurements instead of centimeters. A text intended for a U.S.-based audience uses U.K. spellings such as “centre” and “colour.” [Scope] S or T [Notes]

Output: This value can be used for spelling errors only if they relate specifically to locale expectations (e.g., a text consistently uses British instead of U.S. spellings for a text intended for the U.S.). If these errors are not systematic (e.g., a text uses U.S. spellings but has a single instance of “centre”), they are instead to be counted as spelling errors.

Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0