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

Summary of comments on HTTP-in-RDF

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:03:44 +0100
Message-ID: <45FCBA20.5000707@w3.org>
To: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi,

Please find below a summary of the comments on HTTP-in-RDF document.
These are based on Jo's comments with consideration for some of the
subsequent discussion that took place. Your feedback on each of these
points is welcome, specifically whether you agree with the suggestions
provided or not.


0. clarify the scope of the vocabulary
-> it seems we need to add some text to the document to better explain
the scope of this vocabulary, I suggest somewhere in section 1.

1. represent when a request fails
-> tentative response: out of scope for HTTP-in-RDF.

2. timestamp requests and responses
-> need to decide whether to implement this or not. It seems pretty easy
and useful to add dc:date properties to the response/request classes.

3. extension mechanism in HTTP for the request
-> tentative response: subclass and extend the request class.

4. both the absolute and the relative URI
-> tentative response: out of scope for HTTP-in-RDF.

5. normalisation of header field values
-> need to define some form of convention, even if no transformation is
done we need to say that somewhere. What convention do we want to use?

5.a. literal representation of the unprocessed headers
-> need to decide whether to implement this or not. It seems pretty easy
to add an "http:transcript" property to store the original header text.

6. header field exposed in a way that allows easy access via XPATH
-> need to decide whether to implement this or not, it seems however out
of scope and not straight forward to do.

7. two different representations for headers
-> we need to consider if we want a single mechanism to provide headers
(see response from Johannes on issue #5 in Jo's comments).

8. provide a linkage between a response and a request
-> tentative response: out of scope for HTTP-in-RDF.

9. algorithm for representation of the body
-> need to refine the algorithm a little more. I propose to add
*wellformed XML* to better explain what we mean, and clarify that the
"use plain literal" step includes escaping special characters.

10. provide mechanism for extensible response code
-> need to decide whether to implement this or not. Would need some
reworking but seems useful and good practice to do.

11. record the size of the headers and the body
-> tentative response: out of scope for HTTP-in-RDF.

12. the order of the requests in connection class
-> need to decide whether (and how) to implement this. We need to
specify an rdf:Seq list but not sure how to do this in RDFS.


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 Sunday, 18 March 2007 04:03:48 GMT

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