W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > June 2002

[Issue] asserts vs. assertedBy

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:56:54 +0100
Message-ID: <03ac01c21c71$d6894e00$e2b80150@localhost>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>

15:26:41 [sbp] any reason why we can't have earl:asserts and
earl:assertedBy and let people choose either?
15:26:57 [libby] might make queries a touch trickier
15:26:57 [nadia] it'll make parsing unknown earl reports more difficult
15:27:10 [nadia] er what libby said
]]] - http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-erswad-irc

Alright, this is a bit of an old issue, but I'm starting to reconsider it.
To convert an {:x :asserts :y} triple into a {:y :assertedBy :x} triple is
really not a big deal, so on the one hand I think it'd be reasonable to let
people use either, but on the other it should also be reasonable to let
people author with asserts/assertedBy as they wish, and then get them to
normalize to assertedBy on the output.

Neither earl:asserts nor earl:assertedBy carry any intrinsic advantage over
the other (there are test cases in XML RDF for each where you can cut down
the amount of XML junk), hence my resistance at making an arbitrary choice.
Moreover, I'm just used to writing "earl:asserts" by now! It's not a major
issue, but it really bugs me.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> .
:Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 13:57:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:33 UTC