W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > November 2010


From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:09:44 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD723A8.20903@philarcher.org>
To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Thanks very much Andrea,

I appreciate you taking the time to look at this. Don't beat yourself up 
about it - we both worked on this aspect (so maybe we should beat up 
each other? :-) ). I'd like to ping Stasinos as well but it looks as if 
we're good to go for an erratum plus as much publicity as I can create, 


On 07/11/2010 21:52, Andrea Perego wrote:
> Hi, Phil.
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Phil Archer<phil@philarcher.org>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Through a discussion on another list, I have realised that there is an
>> error in the way we have defined the wdrs:describedby property: we give
>> two conflicting definitions of the same thing. This has come to light
>> when I've followed up on comments that people have made about the
>> property that amount to "we can't use wdrs:describedby because it's
>> specific to POWDER"
>> No!! It isn't - or at least, it shouldn't be. So here's the problem in
>> detail.
>> [snip]
> The issue you are pointing out is clearly a typo - and I have my share
> of fault for having missed it while editing the spec. So, yes, I agree
> that wdrs:describedby MUST NOT have any predefined range.
>> Proposal
>> ========
>> 1. Edit Section 4.1.4 of the DR doc to replace:
>> "We define the RDF property wdrs:describedby with a domain of
>> rdf:Resource and a range of wdrs:Document. This is the class of POWDER
>> documents and is a sub class of owl:Ontology. The meaning of
>> wdrs:describedby is identical to the describedby relationship type
>> defined above so that:"
>> with
>> "We define the RDF property wdrs:describedby, the meaning of which is
>> identical to the describedby relationship type defined above so that:"
>> 2. Edit the namespace document at
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby so that wdrs:describedby
>> has no defined range.
> I totally agree with your proposal. I can take care of revising the
> POWDER-S ontology and namespace document.
>> [snip]
>> Does removing the range restriction on wdrs:decribedby affect
>> conformance? The two conformance statements in the DR doc are not
>> affected. However, unlikely as it may be, it is possible that someone
>> has built an implementation that reasons that a wdrs:describedby
>> property links to a POWDER document. Removing the restriction could
>> conceivably have an adverse effect therefore. I believe this to be
>> highly unlikely but it remains a possibility. Aside from that, the
>> change is entirely backwards compatible.
> I agree. IMHO, the existence of POWDER implementations assuming that
> wdrs:describedby links to a POWDER document should not prevent us from
> fixing this error in the specs, but it is important that their authors
> are aware of that. I wonder how we can give this revision the widest
> visibility.
>> In terms of the W3C process document I think we may come under 3.3 which
>> says that:
>> "clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the specification in
>> such a way that an agent whose conformance was once unclear becomes
>> clearly conforming or non-conforming."
>> Conformance doesn't come into it but even so, an erratum may be
>> insufficient and we may well have to seek a review for a "Proposed
>> Edited Recommendation."
>> Incidentally, while we're at it, we could incorporate the existing
>> erratum [5] which will help get the MIME type registered (this is still
>> outstanding).
> +1
> Cheers,
> Andrea


Phil Archer

Consultant                       |      W3C
Talis Platform                   |      Mobile Web Initiative
http://www.talis.com/platform/   |      http://www.w3.org/Mobile
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2010 22:10:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:05 UTC