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

Re: LC-1773: CC/PP 2.0 : CC/PP Structure, section 3.3

From: stephane boyera <boyera@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:39:29 +0200
Message-ID: <46CEDF91.3000005@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: public-ccpp2-comments@w3.org

Dear Ivan,

Like the WG explained for the issue LC-1772, this specification is 
concerning CC/PP not RDF. Again, yes, there are CC/PP
specific parsers(see LC-1772 [1]) for this stuff. We're documenting the 
existing reality, not where we would go if we were starting again. We're 
trying to produce a firm foundation for the EXISTING OMA UAProf 2 spec, 
that's all.

The WG still wants to reject your comment.
Please let us know if this resolution is ok with you.

Best regards

Ivan Herman wrote:
> O.k. I understand this but I think the formulation is not really correct
> and misleading. I think what you say is that a component must have _only
> one default_. In OWL terms, what you seem to say is that the
> corresponding predicate is inverse functional (which, in OWL, can be
> expressed directly).
> I maintain that the type of differentiation you make, with the text you
> use, is incorrect from the RDF point of view because there is strictly
> no difference between what you denote as inline and external. In other
> words, what happens here is that you impose an extra 'semantics' (sorry
> for the word) on the RDF/XML encoding which no off-the shelf parser
> would understand. Ie, a CC/PP implementation will have to use its own
> parser instead of an external one (after parsing the RDF/XML code the
> resulting RDF Graph will bear absolutely no trace whether the default
> was 'external' or not...)
> Ivan
> stephane boyera wrote:
>> Dear Ivan,
>> Thank you for your comment on CC/PP: Structure and vocabularies 2.0 ([1])
>> Your comment on "CC/PP Structure, section 3.3" ([2]) has been referenced
>> as LC-1773. Please use this reference for further discussion on this
>> mailing-list.
>> The WG decided to reject this comment.
>> The requirement is to prevent the usage, within a component, of both a
>> link to an external default and an inline one. Some components in one
>> profile may have an inline ccpp:defaults, some others may have a link to
>> an external documents. The rational for not allowing both inline and
>> external reference in one component is to prevent conflicting
>> information, and to avoid having to define precedence, profile matching,
>> and rules of conflict resolutions. Such complexity is not appropriate
>> for describing ccpp:defaults.
>> 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/0002.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,		
Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 13:39:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:36:28 UTC