- From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:01:38 +0100
- To: Public MWBP <public-bpwg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <486241B2.8020506@icra.org>
I must apologise again for not being able to attend the recent face to face meeting. Picking up on from the minutes from that event though I'm more than a little relieved to be able to send this e-mail with an outline of how I believe Description Resources can be used to claim mobileOK conformance. First the vocabulary (see attached mobileOK.rdf). This is a standalone RDF vocabulary and has no (direct) relation with POWDER. It's pretty simple. There's a load of metadata at the top about the vocabulary (which can be extended as required of course) and then two classes, one each for Basic and Pro. By making Pro a sub class of Basic the assertion is automatically made that all mobileOK Pro resources are also conformant with mobileOK Basic. There is then a property (conformance) that links whatever the subject is to either of those classes. The range of mok:conformance is defined as being the mobileOK Basic class so it can only be used to link to that class or a sub class of it (like Pro). And that's it. Anyone would be able to use this vocabulary in any semantic application. This includes RDFa btw which I would suggest has some interesting possible apps in the mobile world. For example, imagine you have a non-conformant HTML page but it includes links to resources that are mobileOK. RDFa lets you flag those up link by link: <a href="http://example.com/good_for_mobile.html" rev="mok:conformance" about="http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileOK#Basic" /> This gives the RDF triple <http://example.com/good_for_mobile.html> mok:conformance <http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileOK#Basic> which has the potential for doing interesting things like sending that URI to a mobile device or whatever. So let's turn to how POWDER can help. The attached XML file is a POWDER document that contains one Description Resource. I've repeated it below with line numbers for reference. 1 <powder xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:mok="http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileOK#"> 2 <attribution> 3 <maker src="http://authority.example.org/foaf.rdf#me" /> 4 <issued>2008-06-25T00:00:00</issued> 5 <supportedby>http://validator.w3.org/mobile/</supportedby> 6 </attribution> 7 <dr> 8 <iriset> 9 <includehosts>example.com</includehosts> 10 </iriset> 11 <descriptorset> 12 <mok:conformance rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileOK#Basic" /> 13 <displaytext>The example.com website conforms to mobileOK Basic</displaytext> 14 <displayicon src="http://www.w3.org/ICONS/mobileOK-basic.png" /> 15 </descriptorset> 16 </dr> 17 </powder> Line 1 - the root element is in the POWDER namespace. This is important as there's a GRDDL transform [1] associated with this that will, if executed, turn this into what we call Semantic POWDER or POWDER-S. Then we just need 2 other namespaces, the mobileOK one and the main RDF one. The attribution block, lines 2 - 6, I hope are straightforward enough. Semantic Web folk will recognise the term maker as being a FOAF [2] term (in POWDER-S this becomes explicit) and links to a Friend of A Friend file that contains information about the person or organisation that is making the claim. A simple example of a FOAF file can be seen at [3] (note to self, I really must update this!). The attribution element and the maker element are mandatory for all POWDER documents (everything else in the attribution section is optional). It is permissible to put the FOAF data directly in the POWDER doc but any organisation creating lots of POWDER files will want to store their ID in a central location. Line 4, issued, tells you when the claim was made. Line 5 (supportedby) links to some external source of data that can be called upon to back up the claim made by the document. In this case it points to the mobileOK Basic checker. The Description Resource (DR) itself spans lines 7 to 16. Within it, the IRI set is that most POWDER-ish of all things, the scope of the description. In this case, it's everything on example.com or, more formally, all resources identified by an IRI that has a host in which the last two components exactly match example.com. This is as simple as an IRI set gets. I won't go into a lot of detail here but basically the scope of a DR can be arbitrarily complex. As a brief example - if you want to describe the /mobile section of example.com and example.org as being mobileOK, you'd make the IRI set like this: <iriset> <includehosts>example.com example.org</includehosts> <includepathstartswith>/mobile</includepathstartswith> </iriset> Then we get to the actual description of all those resources which, surprise surprise here, is that they conform to mobileOK Basic. This is done using RDF constructs. A DR's descriptor set can also include text that is suitable for display to end users, and it can include a link to some sort of logo (the URI shown in line 14 is made up of course, I don't know the one for the actual mobileOK Basic logo). As for writing this up, the scheme document needs to include the vocabulary and perhaps an example of a DR claiming conformance. The example above, however, is very likely to be included in one of the POWDER normative documents (it's a good example of the supprtedby property). As Kai reported to the group at the f2f, there should be a load of documents entering the public domain in the next day or so with one more next week (the Test Suite) at FPWD all being well. The plan is to make a Last Call announcement on our main normative documents after next Monday's meeting. I'll let this group know when the right documents are in the right place for review. Phil. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/ [2] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/ [3] http://www.icra.org/icra.rdf
Attachments
- text/xml attachment: powder.xml
- application/rdf+xml attachment: mobileOK.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 13:02:17 UTC