Re: LC-1772: CC/PP 2.0 : Components in the CC/PP Structure Section

stephane boyera wrote:
> Dear Ivan,
> 
> Thank you for your comment on CC/PP: Structure and vocabularies 2.0 ([1])
> Your comment on the "Components in the CC/PP Structure Section" ([2])
> has been referenced as LC-1772. Please use this reference for further
> discussion on this mailing-list.
> 
> From a purely RDF perspective you are completly right: there could be a
> way to integrate in the ccpp-schema the definition of the UAProf
> component through one of the ways you are mentionning.
> That said, as it is explicitly said, in order to ensure compatibility
> with UAProf now, as it is defined today, it is essential to allow the
> use of the UAPRof component. In case, we would work with OMA on a next
> release of cc/pp 2, we would surely integrate this comment and make sure
> that only one component is defined. It's also worth noting that the
> wording in the new version of the spec is identical with that in the
> previous version of the spec which is a W3C recommendation and
> presumably was acceptable to everyone at the time. We're not seeking to
> change anything that was agreed in the first version apart from those
> changes that caused divergence from the ability to support UAProf.
> 

Well... With all due respect, your argument regarding the previous
version of CC/PP is not correct. If there were errors in that version
that are revealed in this version only, then this is the way to do it.

I maintain that, in the present format, the specification may lead to
serious problems if CC/PP and UAProf documents are used within the same
application and using an off-the shelf RDF environment. Following the
text of the recommendation the user may expect these two resources to be
identical but the RDF environment will consider them as completely
disjoint. This may lead to interoperability problems.

However... I proposed to add rdfs:subClass (and/or owl:sameAs)
statements into the renewed CC/PP RDF Schema documents. Though may not
be fully perfect it does create the semantic link between those two
resources. Why is that a problem with the Working Group?

Ivan


> As a result the WG rejects this comment.
> Please let us know if you agree with this decision.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> On behalf of the UWA WG,
> Stephane Boyera
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab2-20070430/
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ccpp2-comments/2007Jun/0001.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/uwa/editors-drafts/ccpp2/

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf