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

Re: dave pawson corrected earl dtd

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:49:23 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
cc: Dave Pawson <daveP@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0206251738420.32410-100000@tux.w3.org>

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Sean B. Palmer wrote:


  The same kind of issues raised about
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-er-ig/2002Jun/0029 apply here:
  that an abbreviated syntax is not useful for the majority of people that
  automatically produce EARL;

CMN: It isn't that it isn't useful, just that the value of it isn't that
high. Storing a lot of information makes a difference, and large scale users
will be storing info. Again, it isn't critical, but it isn't a bad thing for
a bunch of use cases.

  that validation is the main advantage, as long
  as a standard transformation is used;

CMN Yes. This seems like a neat feature to have in some cases - most
particularly in saying "I don't trust an assertion that doesn't have all the
right pieces".

  that consensus must be reached upon
  the level of features to be included in the linear format.

CMN True for a "canonical form", and I think one of those is useful. But
there are also cases where people are going to want a particular profile
because it meets their need, and they might publish it and provide an
explanation of how to make it into the RDF form. Alternatively, if we keep
RDF as the "canonical representation" then they just have to make their XML
be RDF, and we can describe how that can be done. (this is more a benefit for
RDF in terms of explaining ways to do RDF than for EARL itself I guess, but
that's OK too... if  it doesn't cost us too much to do)


Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 17:49:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:34 UTC