W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > April 2011

Re: For review by Friday 8 April 2011

From: Christophe Strobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:49:56 +0200
To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c6f8934656cb64acb9860fe45e034cb5@esat.kuleuven.be>
Dear Emergency Room Team (ERT) WG ;-)

My responses are below:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:12:36 +0200, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> ERT WG,
> 
> Please review and respond to the following points by Friday 8 April:
> 
> 
> #1. Separating conformance/restrictions for vocabulary definitions
> 
>   - previous discussions:
>   -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item04>
>   -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-er-minutes#item02>
> 
>   - more detailed explanation:
>   -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0007>
> 
>   - questions to consider:
>   -- can you live with conformance/restrictions moving out of the 
> vocabulary definition documents, and into a more specific document?

Yes. 

>   -- if so, what other guidance would go along with this guidance on 
> conformance/restrictions for EARL tool developers?
>   -- is it imaginable that the focus (and title, if needed) of the EARL 
> Guide could shift to match the guidance we want to provide?

I had a brief look at some OWL docs: they appear to separate semantics (on
REC track), conformance (on REC track,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-conformance/>), and guide or primer
(<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/>). Would this approach work for us?
Philip also proposed this separation.


> 
> References:
>   - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues#conformance>
>   - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-EARL10-Schema-20091029/#conformance>
>   - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#conformance>
>   - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#conformance>
> 
> 
> #2. HTTP-in-RDF Message Header
> 
>   - previous discussion:
>   -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item05>
> 
>   - proposed solution:
>   -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0008>
> 
>   - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?

(I haven't studied HTTP in sufficient detail to be 100% certain.)

> 
> References:
>   - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#MessageClass>
>   - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#MessageClass>
> 
> 
> #3. HTTP-in-RDF PATCH Method
> 
>   - previous discussion:
>   -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item05>
> 
>   - proposed solution:
>   -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Apr/0001>
> 
>   - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?

Yes.

> 
> References:
>   - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#MethodClass>
>   - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#MethodClass>
> 
> 
> #4. Proposed batch-resolutions
> 
>   - suggestions for resolutions to open comments:
>   -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0010>

#1. fix FOAF namespace (change to http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/)
OK

#2. add an example to OutcomeValue Class section
Sure, but where is the example? ;-)

#3. use "ht" prefix instead of "http"
OK

#4. update outdated RDF files for HTTP-in-RDF
OK

#5. add dct:identifier with integers of the status codes
I don't know what has been changed.

#6. remove stray OWL citation in the references
OK


> 
>   - note: item #5 dct:identifier/status code will be handled separately
> 
>   - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?

See above.

Best regards,

Christophe


> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
>    Shadi

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51 
www.docarch.be
Twitter: @RabelaisA11y
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 13:50:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 April 2011 13:50:28 GMT