Re: nistmeta.xsl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: nistmeta.xsl


> > 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.
>

[mb] Not a criticism, I'm just trying to understand where you are going
with this...I missed this point entirely, and I see that you can generate
these, but I don't know how you think they should be used -- I thought the
primary
reason was to finish up the metadata portion of this work -- which
I believe nistmeta.xsl could easily do by including the additional
descriptions.

> 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.
>

[mb] Other than confusing me, and possibly others, about what you
are proposing...if you have compelling reasons for using rdf, please
tell us, so we don't have to guess.  I'm not against it -- I just don't have
the time to track down rdf and figure out how to fit it into our
revolving framework.  If you do, please share how you envision
using it.  That way, we can discuss the technical merits, and finish
up this portion of the framework.

--Mary

>

Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 12:17:53 UTC