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

Re: LC-1775: CC/PP 2.0 : Component attributes

From: stephane boyera <boyera@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:42:48 +0200
Message-ID: <46CEE058.3010209@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: public-ccpp2-comments@w3.org

Dear Ivan,

Definitive statements about restrictions that UAProf introduces should 
be in the UAProf specfication NOT the CC/PP specification. The WG 
believes that our comment is intended as helpful information. If you 
think that this is preferable, the WG is open to decide to remove this 
note. That said, the WG thinks that this would remove potentially useful 
information.

Please let us know if you agree with this
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 "Component attributes" ([2]) has been referenced as
>> LC-1775. Please use this reference for further discussion on this
>> mailing-list.
>>
>> The UWA WG has decided to partially accept this comment, and
>> corresponding changes have been implemented in the future CR draft
>> available at [3].
>> First, it's a good catch about the reference. It should be to
>> RDFXML not RDFPRIMER.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>> Second, the WG doesn't think the text makes the assertion that you
>> states. The note doesn't say anything about CC/PP placing restrictions
>> on the use of RDF. It says that if you want your CC/PP profile to be
>> compliant with UAProf, you must not use typed nodes.
>>
> 
> I referred to RDF/XML in my comment and _not_ to RDF:
> 
> [[[
> However, it is not clear to me whether a more 'crisp' statement is true
> or not. Is it correct that the _only_ RDF/XML feature of RDF/XML that is
> _not_ allowed in a CC/PP application is the typed node syntax (this is
> the way I read the note)? Ie, am I allowed to write something like:
> ]]]
> 
> What you say is that UAProf restricts the usage of typed nodes in the
> RDF/XML sense, right? Ie, when using UAProf, there are restrictions in
> what the RDF/XML document allows. Hence my original questions/comments hold:
> 
> - is this the _only_ restriction in using RDF/XML that UAProf
> introduces? This should be documented
> 
> - the current spec violates this restriction v.a.v. UAProf in using
> rdf:Bag... Which may be all right but is worth noting because the
> average reader may have problems...
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> So the WG proposes making no change on this part.
>>
>> 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/0004.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 13:43:04 GMT

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