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

RE: [ACTION] represenation of simple and more complicated HTTP conversation in RDF

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:17:50 +0100
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281901930E7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "ERT group" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

 

> Carlos Iglesias schrieb:
> > I don't know exactly what, but I think something is missing.
> > 
> > Let's say we have:
> > 
> > <earl:Assertion rdf:ID="#assertion">
> >   <earl:assertedBy rdf:resource="#assertor" />
> >   <earl:subject rdf:resource="#subject" />
> >   <earl:test rdf:resource="#testcase" />
> >   <earl:result rdf:resource="#result" /> </earl:Assertion>
> > 
> > For example in the case of an assertion about a content with 
> > transparent content negotation, what WebContent should you use as 
> > Subject of the Assertion?
> > 
> > Wc1? Wc2? A RDF container with both?
> 
> Probably you performed the evaluation on wc2 because it 
> contain actual content. So the subject would be wc2. If OTOH 
> you did an evaluation on wc1, the subject would be wc1.

So the idea is to have a RDF container with both, wc1 and wc2, and point from subjet to wc2 which is inside a ¿standalone? container. Isn't it?

Regards,
 CI.
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2006 17:18:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:27 GMT