- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:18 +0100
- To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
- Cc: <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>
> > too already. Why do we need another schema? is it that we need to > > impose tighter constraints on ordering? Three reasons, 1. ordering constraints 2. verbosity implied by the class / property structure in RDF when serialised 3. desire for simplicity/accuracy/reliability of XPath expressions when querying the document for presence and/or absence of features. Jo > -----Original Message----- > From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mobileok- > checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra > Sent: 26 April 2007 09:02 > To: Sean Owen > Cc: Jo Rabin; public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > Subject: Re: mobileOK intermediate format (moki) > > > Hi Sean, > > Sean Owen wrote: > > EARL is an application of RDF. There is already an XML schema for the > > earl: namespace. As applied to describing HTTP, it happens to also fit > > the tree-oriented model of XML already. That is it makes sense as XML > > too already. Why do we need another schema? is it that we need to > > impose tighter constraints on ordering? > > Actually, ERT WG doesn't (yet) have an XML schema for EARL and/or the > HTTP stuff -it is currently all in RDF. However, it seems that this and > potentially other groups would need such XML schemas so it may make > sense for ERT WG to look into creating one. > > > > Put another way: what goes so wrong if we reuse the earl: namespace > > rather than write the same elements again in another namespace? > > I don't think we need to create a new namespace, we should be able to > reuse the currently existing EARL/HTTP elements. What I mean is an XML > schema on top of these elements (that are currently described in RDF). > > > > Did that make any sense? > > Yes, I hope I did too. Maybe Jo can confirm what his initial thoughts > were too... > > > > On 4/24/07, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote: > >> > b) I wonder if it would be a good idea to separate out the http part > >> (and > >> > possibly others) into standalone schemas? > >> > >> As above, I'd be happy to work with you on such an XML schema for the > >> HTTP Vocabulary (in RDF). > > Regards, > Shadi > > > -- > Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | > Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | > Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | > WAI-TIES Project, http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | > Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | > 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, Sophia-Antipolis - France | > Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 14:33:04 UTC