W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > April 2007

RE: Last Call Review: EARL 1.0 Schema Last Call Working Draft

From: shuaib <skarim@ifs.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:28:10 +0000
To: "'Johannes Koch'" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001b01c7864a$6f3f26a0$a7a8a8c0@turion641>




Hi Johannes,

My first name is Shuaib.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johannes Koch [mailto:johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de]
> Sent: Dienstag, 24. April 2007 09:04
> To: shuaib
> Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call Review: EARL 1.0 Schema Last Call Working Draft
> 
> Hi Shuaib, or is Karim your first name?
> 
> shuaib schrieb:
> > Hi Johannes,
> >
> > For example, there can be inline graphics and multimedia in the contents
> for
> > which separate http:Requests are generated. The existing schema is
> depicting
> > the multiple requests.
> 
> Subsequent request to inline graphics etc. can be modeled by using RDF
> collections like in example 2.2 of
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20070323/>:
> 
> <http:Connection rdf:ID="conn2">
>    <http:connectionAuthority>www.example.org:80</http:connectionAuthority>
>    <http:request rdf:parseType="Collection">
>      <http:Request rdf:about="#req0"/>
>      <http:Request rdf:about="#req1"/>
>    </http:request>
> </http:Connection>
> 
> > It would also be interesting to capture and depict
> > the "actual" time durations to fulfill these requests (difference
> between
> > timestamps of corresponding requests-responses) by the respective
> servers.
> 
> I think we already thought about adding time properties. The HTTP spec
> talks about time in the section on caching. You could add e.g.
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/created or refinements like
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/dateSubmitted to the Request resources. Usually
> the server already sends a Date header. But you could additionally add
> your local date/time to the Response resource.

Here are you referring to HTTP Specs. RFC2616, or the HTTP RDF vocabulary
under review? I saw in RFC 2616 the caching mechanism but not the comparable
details in HTTP RDF. Maybe I overlooked something.

In any case, shouldn't these properties be made part of HTTP RDF schema, or
you are leaving it to the users to extend if they are in need of?

> 
> --
> Johannes Koch
> BIKA Web Compliance Center - Fraunhofer FIT
> Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
> Phone: +49-2241-142628    Fax: +49-2241-142065


Regards,
Shuaib Karim
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 09:13:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:28 GMT