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

Response to Call for Review: HTTP Vocabulary in RDF Working Draft

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:38:10 +0000
Message-ID: <45A61282.6090306@icra.org>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Cc: WCL-XG Member List <member-xg-wcl@w3.org>

I have read the HTTP Vocabulary in RDF Working Draft and offer the 
following comments on behalf of ICRA.

First of all, thanks!

Schemas like this seem pretty fundamental for RDF-based processing of 
Web interactions so I think it's going to be helpful if the work of the 
WCL-XG moves forward into a Working Group (as we hope it will shortly). 
I see the schema as a building block that probably should have been in 
place some time ago (in whatever ideal universe such things happen!).

I'm really pleased that you've made the schema so comprehensive - it 
would have been easy just to codify the basic request types and headers. 
Following the same logic, I was disappointed therefore that you have not 
taken the same approach to the "uri namespace." You have set up a 
namespace for this but have just the single property of uri.

During our discussion in the XG last year, we identified a possible need 
for a schema that enabled the encoding of a URI's constituents in RDF. 
One might imagine something like


The property you use in example 2.1 would still be valid but the schema 
would support richer applications to use the same namespace too.

(Incidentally, the possible need arose when we were talking about 
resource grouping, something that, I know, is also relevant to ERT. If 
the WG is chartered, we'll pick up this discussion's again).

Finally, on a trivial point, the numbering in section 3 is awry.


Phil Archer
Chief Technical Officer, ICRA
w. http://www.icra.org/people/philarcher/

Working for a Safer Internet
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 15:08:17 UTC

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