- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:51:40 +0200
- To: Carlos A Velasco <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi Carlos, Carlos A Velasco wrote: > In the whole issue of the HTTP-in-RDF review, I raised also a point in > regard to possible redundancy of classes in our last telecon: > > <http://www.w3.org/2007/08/08-er-minutes#item01> > > in regard to overlapping of earl:Content and http:Content (and > subclasses). I do not think we shall go this direction, because we may > originate confusion. > > To avoid circular references between EARL and HTTP, I would move Content > outside these namespaces, so we could have a general Content class, not > tied to HTTP or any other protocol. Within this scope, we could also > tackle the issue of a generic uri property for this class. > > Furthermore, like Johannes, I do not think subclassing http:Content > belongs to the context of HTTP-in-RDF. Maybe, to this new namespace ... Yes, I agree we need to sort out the overlap between earl:Content and http:Content (especially and circular references) but I'm not sure if creating an abstract "Content" in a new namespace is a good approach. It seems to me that earl:Content is pretty abstract, while http:Content is actually an http:Body rather than content in the sense of a resource. I think this also relates to Issue #10 (for EARL) and the TAG definition for "Information Resource": - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues#cont> Note the (old and draft but useful) TAG finding on "What Does a URI Identify" which also seems very relevant: - <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/identify.html> Regards, Shadi >>>> Thanks for reworking this, it looks good to me. One question though, >>>> the http:Message class reminds me very much of the RFC 822 work that >>>> we have dropped a while ago. I'm not arguing to revive this work (or >>>> namespace) >>> Really? ;-) >>> >>>> but do you think we could clean it up to become an extension point? >>>> >>>> For example if we move http:body up into the http:Message and remodel >>>> http:httpVersion (not sure how though) then the http:Message >>>> resembles pretty much an rfc822:Message (and anyone who needs it can >>>> extend it). >>> You mean something like: >>> >>> foo:Message >>> |- 0..1 foo:headers >>> |- 1 foo:body >>> >>> http:Message extends foo:Message >>> |- 1 http:httpVersion >>> |- 0..1 dc:date >>> >>> foo:headers ((Collection of) foo:MessageHeader) >>> foo:body ((rdf:Alt of) foo:Content) >>> >>> with Content (with subclasses), MessageHeader, HeaderName, >>> HeaderElement, Param and their properties moving to the foo namespace? >> No, no, no, I'm *really* not trying to revive RFC822 (disguised as foo)! >> I think we could have something like this: >> >> http:Message >> |- 0..1 http:headers >> |- 0..1 http:body >> |- 0..1 dc:date >> >> This should now resemble an RFC822 message. Now say someone wants to >> create SMTP-in-RDF or whatever, they could do something like this: >> >> smtp:Mail rdfs:subClassOf http:Message >> >> (if they don't like the "http" they can use any other shortname) >> >> ...what I'm trying to get at, is that maybe some minor tweaks could make >> this piece reusable to others without much work for us. I don't know how >> to make http:httpVersion though, and if it's worth the effort to go down >> this route at all. What do others think? -- 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 Wednesday, 22 August 2007 08:51:48 UTC