W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org > July 2000

CC/PP compatibility and DATA element naming

From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:45:48 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000719162604.00b2b100@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: CC/PP WG list <w3c-ccpp-wg@w3.org>, <www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org>
I have recently looked at the 10-May P3P specification, and find that I am 
uncertain about the use of URIs when naming data elements.

Section 3.3.6 says that the URI part denotes a dataschema, and the fragment 
identifier denotes the name of a data element.

CC/PP uses RDF properties to represent client attributes;  it is the 
URI-reference of these properties that would need to be subject to the 
various practices described in a P3P statement.  RDF does not attempt to 
interpret different parts of a URI-reference:  the whole thing serves to 
name a URI property.

My concern is that the URI reference used for an RDF property that 
represents a CC/PP attribute may not fall into the schema+name pattern 
prescribed by the P3P specification.  In such cases, is it still legitimate 
to use the entire URI-ref to describe a P3P data element?

I also have a concern about the strict case-sensitivity of the fragment 
identifier.  Web architecture as I understand it has that a fragment 
identifier is meaningful only in the context of the MIME type of an 
associated entity, and that its interpretation is defined by that MIME 
type.  Is the MIME type associated with a dataschema URI-reference defined?

#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2000 11:48:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.1 : Tuesday, 21 September 2004 12:14:16 GMT