W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [HTTP-in-RDF] sub-class approach for methods?

From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:07:20 +0200
Message-ID: <49D358F8.60506@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb:
> Hi Johannes,
> 
> Johannes Koch wrote:
>> Hi group,
>>
>> in EARL we defined the outcome values as sub-classes of 
>> earl:OutcomeValue, and the test modes as sub-classes of earl:TestMode.
>>
>> Should we use the same approach for the methods and status codes in 
>> HTTP-in-RDF?
> 
> I believe this would be in-line with the comments from AWWSW:
>  - <http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswHttpVocabularyInRdfComments>
> 
> If so, then maybe this is indeed the better way to go...

Well, what they suggested is to create sub-classes for the status code 
groups, e.g.

<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#StatusCode3xx">
   <dc:title xml:lang="en">Redirection</dc:title>
   <dc:description xml:lang="en">A status code starting with 
3</dc:description>
   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2008/http#StatusCode"/>
</rdfs:Class>

They did _not_ suggest du make every status code into a sub-class of 
StatusCode.

I still find it somehow ugly to create a sub-class for something that is 
really only _one_ instance of a class. Or do we expect to have more 
instances of a class bla:StatusCode404 or earl:Passed?

-- 
Johannes Koch
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT
Web Compliance Center
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628    Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 12:07:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 April 2009 12:07:56 GMT