- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:06:12 +0200
- To: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
- Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Carlos Iglesias wrote: > IMO if we have a clear use case for non-URI identifiers then we should > choose "identifier", if not we should choose "URI" For earl:WebContent it is clear that we need a URI to describe the resource. However, I can imagine some use cases for dc:identifier too. For example a hash or checksum of the resource to compare it at a later fetch of the same URI. As to earl:Software, it seems to be the opposite approach: an identifier such as the build or version number may be the best identifier, and URI may sometimes be available too (as a location to download or find more information about the software). > (but I'm not sure about what its "registered" status implies and how it > differs from the "recommended" status). This is a good point, we already have this shaky dependency on foaf:Agent. 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 Tuesday, 20 June 2006 10:06:20 UTC