> Rather than assume that the developers of any given test I want to use > will add my translations, part of the value of RDF is that I can provide > the human-readable information in another language, and build on that in > my interface, without needing this kind of coordination. > Sounds like a good idea. We have a strategy for localizing the test suite but your suggestion may do more. > The idea of using OWL is that you can work with generic tools like Jena to > build the tools, and that it saves us from the work of discussing how we > should design an XML or RDF vocabulary in the first place :-) > I'm not too familiar with OWL yet but I'll have to check it out. Can you suggest a good place to start? >> Here's how our checker says you have an image without an alt attribute in >> EARL: > > I think you should check your stuff with the RDF validator... > Yikes, that would be scary! This code is very rough but we're going to improve it soon. > I'll send an email with the version that we rely on in Sidar, which just > corrects things that are obvious typos leading to validity errors. > Very helpful. I'd like to see it. ChrisReceived on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 19:14:39 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:25 GMT