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

RE: mobileOK intermediate format (moki)

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:18 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4236A62@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
Cc: <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

> > too already. Why do we need another schema? is it that we need to
> > impose tighter constraints on ordering?

Three reasons,

1. ordering constraints
2. verbosity implied by the class / property structure in RDF when
serialised
3. desire for simplicity/accuracy/reliability of XPath expressions when
querying the document for presence and/or absence of features.

Jo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mobileok-
> checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra
> Sent: 26 April 2007 09:02
> To: Sean Owen
> Cc: Jo Rabin; public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
> Subject: Re: mobileOK intermediate format (moki)
> 
> 
> Hi Sean,
> 
> Sean Owen wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Actually, ERT WG doesn't (yet) have an XML schema for EARL and/or the
> HTTP stuff -it is currently all in RDF. However, it seems that this
and
> potentially other groups would need such XML schemas so it may make
> sense for ERT WG to look into creating one.
> 
> 
> > Put another way: what goes so wrong if we reuse the earl: namespace
> > rather than write the same elements again in another namespace?
> 
> I don't think we need to create a new namespace, we should be able to
> reuse the currently existing EARL/HTTP elements. What I mean is an XML
> schema on top of these elements (that are currently described in RDF).
> 
> 
> > Did that make any sense?
> 
> Yes, I hope I did too. Maybe Jo can confirm what his initial thoughts
> were too...
> 
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Regards,
>    Shadi
> 
> 
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
> Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
> WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
> Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
> 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
> Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 14:33:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:03 GMT