Comments from SWCG

I've just been talking about the Description Resources doc [1] on the 
weekly Semantic Web Coordination Group call. This e-mail is my method of 
  recording the comments received that the group will need to consider 
in due course. Minutes are at [2] (member only)

1. There was some discussion on IRC about the meaning of cardinality=1. 
Consensus seems to be that we must mean minCardinality, which we don't, 
we mean there must be one and only one so this needs looking at.

2. The issue of whether Descriptors should be linked from DR or from 
resource Set met some confusion (probably due to my poor and hurried 
explanation). Suggestion is that we should create two test cases to 
solve it.

3. Much concern about DRs having or not having a URI of their own. My 
take from the conversation was that we should always have some sort of 
identifier unless there is only one DR in the RDF instance. So we 
probably need to include rdf:about="...#DR1" for each wdr:DR.

4. Dan C pointed to a line from the HTML 4 spec: "Authors may wish to 
define additional link types not described in this specification. If 
they do so, they should use a profile to cite the conventions used to 
define the link types. Please see the profile attribute of the HEAD 
element for more details." --

Which means that we *can* (and should) publish an HTML profile that can 
be used to define rel="powder". The GRDDL WG is pushing for @profile to 
be retained in HTML 5 [3] and we should add our voice to that (and 
probably use their HTML profile as a template :-) ). There'll be a 
discussion on extensibility at the Tech Plenary in November which may be 
relevant to us as well.

That's it for now.



Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 16:11:27 UTC