W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ccpp2-comments@w3.org > August 2007

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

From: stephane boyera <boyera@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:35:53 +0200
Message-ID: <46CEDEB9.8050607@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: public-ccpp2-comments@w3.org

Dear Ivan,

The WG thinks that your use case is incorrect.

First, UAProf is an application of CC/PP not an alternative to it. You
don't use the two of them together. In order to ensure compatibility we 
accept that this application of CC/PP doesn't use the cc/pp namespace 
for the component.
Second, you don't use an off-the-shelf environment to process CC/PP.
CC/PP is an applicatoin of RDF and bring extra semantic which are 
understand by CC/PP processors and not RDF parser.  There are specific 
software components that support it (JSR 188 for example).

So for these reasons the WG still thinks that it should reject your comment.
So please let us know if you agree with our resolution.

Best Regards
Stephane
Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
> 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/
> 

-- 
Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
W3C				+33 (0) 4 92 38 78 34
BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		
France
Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 13:36:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:39 GMT