Re: LC-1775: CC/PP 2.0 : Component attributes

O.k., I understand the distinction, and it is really an editorial issue.
The way you can read that line is that to be CC/PP conform, you are
supposed not to use typed notes. I think you should make it clearer that
the whole NOTE section is _not_ normative but only informative. I have
no problem if it is clearly stated that it is informative.

Ivan

stephane boyera wrote:
> Dear Ivan,
> 
> Definitive statements about restrictions that UAProf introduces should
> be in the UAProf specfication NOT the CC/PP specification. The WG
> believes that our comment is intended as helpful information. If you
> think that this is preferable, the WG is open to decide to remove this
> note. That said, the WG thinks that this would remove potentially useful
> information.
> 
> Please let us know if you agree with this
> Best Regards
> Stephane
> 
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>> stephane boyera wrote:
>>> Dear Ivan,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your comment on CC/PP: Structure and vocabularies 2.0
>>> ([1])
>>> Your comment on "Component attributes" ([2]) has been referenced as
>>> LC-1775. Please use this reference for further discussion on this
>>> mailing-list.
>>>
>>> The UWA WG has decided to partially accept this comment, and
>>> corresponding changes have been implemented in the future CR draft
>>> available at [3].
>>> First, it's a good catch about the reference. It should be to
>>> RDFXML not RDFPRIMER.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>> Second, the WG doesn't think the text makes the assertion that you
>>> states. The note doesn't say anything about CC/PP placing restrictions
>>> on the use of RDF. It says that if you want your CC/PP profile to be
>>> compliant with UAProf, you must not use typed nodes.
>>>
>>
>> I referred to RDF/XML in my comment and _not_ to RDF:
>>
>> [[[
>> However, it is not clear to me whether a more 'crisp' statement is true
>> or not. Is it correct that the _only_ RDF/XML feature of RDF/XML that is
>> _not_ allowed in a CC/PP application is the typed node syntax (this is
>> the way I read the note)? Ie, am I allowed to write something like:
>> ]]]
>>
>> What you say is that UAProf restricts the usage of typed nodes in the
>> RDF/XML sense, right? Ie, when using UAProf, there are restrictions in
>> what the RDF/XML document allows. Hence my original questions/comments
>> hold:
>>
>> - is this the _only_ restriction in using RDF/XML that UAProf
>> introduces? This should be documented
>>
>> - the current spec violates this restriction v.a.v. UAProf in using
>> rdf:Bag... Which may be all right but is worth noting because the
>> average reader may have problems...
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> So the WG proposes making no change on this part.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> On behalf of the UWA WG,
>>> Stephane Boyera
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab2-20070430/
>>> [2]
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ccpp2-comments/2007Jun/0004.html
>>>
>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/uwa/editors-drafts/ccpp2/
>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf