W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > July 2001

Re: nistmeta.xsl

From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:38:02 -0500
Message-ID: <001901c1088d$241a5140$7600a8c0@CurtMicron>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> The information in the test-matrix.html file
> only captures info regarding the test
> purposes (or semantic requirements), not
> necessarily all of the metadata for a particular test.
> There is an additional description for a test
> that more fully describes what happens in the
> test itself, and should be used to supplement the
> test purpose.  It is this information that resides
> in an older rendition that needs to be brought into
> the metadata file.  I would also suggest that it, along
> with author, possibly creation date, revision date info
> be carried along with each test, and translated into
> prologue documentation -- probably javadoc for the
> java transformation.

nistmeta.xsl was primarily a demonstration of the viability of
determining subject URI's from the description of the test.

It should be possible to extend the concepts in nistmeta.xsl
to put the metadata from the "older" representation
into the body of each test.  Generating Java documentation comments
from inline metadata should be trivial.

I think revision date could be automatically inserted into a comment by CVS.
Not sure if it could be controlled enough to put just the revision date into
the existing format.

>
> I noticed that you are still using rdf.  Why?

At the time I was doing it, it was easier just to convert one
external metadata source into one external RDF document.

Simplifying the metadata in the test definitions help authors, but
there isn't a good reason why external compilations of metadata
extracted from those tests aren't valid RDF.
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 11:37:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:03 UTC