W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > April 2007

Re: mobileOK intermediate format (moki)

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:55:18 +0400
Message-ID: <e920a71c0704250755x15f25a85v962aabd8b578daab@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: "Jo Rabin" <jo@linguafranca.org>, public-mobileok-checker@w3.org

I think this is the way forward, personally, but...

Now, here I may expose my limited understanding of RDF. I understand
RDF is effectively a particular application of XML, and that while it
is described in XML, its model is more that of a graph than a tree of

EARL is an application of RDF. There is already an XML schema for the
earl: namespace. As applied to describing HTTP, it happens to also fit
the tree-oriented model of XML already. That is it makes sense as XML
too already. Why do we need another schema? is it that we need to
impose tighter constraints on ordering?

Put another way: what goes so wrong if we reuse the earl: namespace
rather than write the same elements again in another namespace?

Did that make any sense?


On 4/24/07, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> > b) I wonder if it would be a good idea to separate out the http part (and
> > possibly others) into standalone schemas?
> As above, I'd be happy to work with you on such an XML schema for the
> HTTP Vocabulary (in RDF).
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 14:55:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:18 UTC