- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:09:15 +0100
- To: Carlos A Velasco <carlos.velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- CC: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Carlos,
Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> 1) Whether we make the schema "pure" RDFS. We can eliminate the OWL
>> "thingies." We could make all instances from Outcome and TestMode simple
>> RDF Resources.
>
> I thought we had come to this conclusion but I may be wrong.
Checking the document now, I see two things that may need discussion:
#1. Importing other vocabulary:
<owl:imports rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/index.rdf"/>
- Do we really want to do this? What about DC? I'd like to learn more
about the pros and cons before making this step...
#2. oneOf still used:
<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Assertor">
<owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<owl:Thing rdf:about="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent"/>
<owl:Thing rdf:about="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Group"/>
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Software"/>
</owl:oneOf>
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">Persons or evaluation tools that claim
assertions</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Assertor</rdfs:label>
</rdfs:Class>
- I thought we agreed to eliminate this restriction for the Schema and
put it as a conformance requirement into the spec. Right?
Best,
Shadi
--
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
WAI International Program Office Activity Lead |
W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 15:09:57 UTC