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

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

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:16:29 +0100
Message-ID: <45AB628D.8020307@w3.org>
To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org, WCL-XG Member List <member-xg-wcl@w3.org>

Hi Phil,

Thank you for your comments on behalf of ICRA. We have had a lot of 
discussion about a more comprehensive URI class recorded in [1] and [2] 
(same thread but separated by month):

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Mar/0021>
[2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Apr/0015>

Since a simple URI property seemed sufficient for our current usage, we 
decided to go the easy way for now. However, as noted, we deliberately 
put this URI property in a separate namespace to facilitate an extension 
for this part of the vocabulary. It is important to see interest in such 
a refinement from outside the ERT WG as well.

You mentioned some previous work on a URI schema and I recall some 
discussions with Danbri. Do you have some pointeres to useful resources 
which we could look at and consider refining?

Thanks also for noticing the numbering issues in section 3.

Regards,
   Shadi


Phil Archer wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> <uri:URI>
>   <uri:uri>http://example.org/?colour=red</uri:uri>
>   <uri:schema>http</uri:scheme>
>   <uri:authority>example.org</uri:authority>
>   <uri:path>/</uri:path>
>   <uri:query>colour=red</uri:query>
> </uri:URI>
> 
> 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.
> 

-- 
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 Monday, 15 January 2007 11:16:34 GMT

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