W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > April 2006

URI-in-RDF vs. single URI property

From: Carlos A Velasco <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:30:39 +0200
Message-ID: <444754BF.4000803@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Dear all,

Following my action item:

Here comes a summary of the issues. In the HTTP-in-RDF note [1], the 
Request class decomposes the URI in all its components: scheme, host, 
port, etc. In EARL, however, we are discussing whether to use a single 
property, earl:uri.

IMHO there are no use cases that can favour one or the other approach in 
a decisive manner, but there is a clear *inconsistency problem* with the 
actual approach that might lead to confusion. My original proposal was 
to take the URI outside both EARL and [1] in its own namespace, with a 
single class and the properties of [2]. Then, both EARL and [1] can use 
it (and any other RDF app for that matter).

The only argument against this is, of course, verbosity (OK, and maybe a 
little bit of complexity ;-) ).

I can live with both solutions (I like a little bit more the URI-in-RDF 
way), but if we follow the single property solution, I would put it 
anyway in its own namespace (RFC2396), so we can use it as well in [1] 
without circular references between EARL and [1].

That is all, I think. Others?


[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20060320
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
Dr Carlos A Velasco - http://access.fit.fraunhofer.de/
Fraunhofer-Institut für Angewandte Informationstechnik FIT
   [Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT)]
   Barrierefreie Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie für Alle
   Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany)
   Tel: +49-2241-142609 Fax: +49-2241-1442609
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 09:31:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:54 UTC