RE: Summary of comments on the Primer FPWD

Hi Phil,

I don't see any comments added to the tracker.

Does that need to be done still or am I just not finding them?

Also, which notes are your referring to?

-- Kai

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:56 PM
> To: Public POWDER
> Subject: Summary of comments on the Primer FPWD
> Mainly for Diana and Kai's benefit, when I was loading up our 
> comments tracker the other day, I also jotted down some notes 
> on the comments received on the Primer.
> We will need to update this doc soon - if only we had more 
> hours in the day.
> Notes and links follow
> ======================
> Simon Raboczi (18/8)
> At the end of section 5 of the POWDER Primer draft,  you have 
> the following RDFa example:
> <html xmlns:wdrs="">
>    <head>
>      <title>The English Civil War
>      </title>
>    </head>
> <body>
> ....
> <div>
>   <link rel="wdrs:describedBy" 
> href="" />
>     <p>Charles I came to the throne believing in his Divine 
> Right to rule...
> </div>
> ....
> </body>
> </html>
> I'm pretty sure <link> elements can only appear in the 
> <head>, not in the <body> as is done here.  Perhaps this was 
> intended to be an <a> tag instead?
> ============================
> Rotan Hanrahan (on behalf of UWA)
> Comments received on member list on 28/8.
> Answered by me on public list and both KRS & KDS on member 
> list on same day.
> 1) According to the POWDER primer, certification of DRs is 
> indicated in order to elevate trust in descriptions.
> Who is proposed to provide/manage such certifications? Would 
> this be the current SSL cert providers, for example?
> 2) If so, who says that these providers are qualified to 
> assess/create descriptions?
> 3) Or is the issue of the environment in which certification 
> is managed considered out of scope for the POWDER WG?
> 4) The question was raised internally within my company when 
> someone observed that this might be the creation of another 
> "money making scheme", as some people believe the SSL cert 
> providers have been given a license to print money.
> Following the replies, Rotan wrote:
> The absence of an authority could be the difference between 
> consumer acceptance and consumer rejection. Those who have 
> already created a sense of authority (such as existing SSL 
> cert providers) will be in a better position to establish 
> authority for DR certification, regardless of their 
> competence to actually assess the described resources.
> Yes, this "bigger picture" is probably out of scope for the 
> WG. No doubt others have been thinking about it.
> Fabien Gandon,
> See My mail 1/9
> Reading he primer I saw what may be a typo: in the following 
> paragraph you mention twice "three ways of providing 
> description" but you list only two.
> "The final key element of a Description Resource is the 
> actual description. There are *three *ways of providing this.
>      * As RDF (in a "descriptor set")
>      * As one or more tags (in a "tag set") A DR must contain 
> at least one of these *three *and may contain any greater 
> number of them, none of which may be empty."
> Questions from UWA more formally posed via KRS on member list 
> 4/9 
> 1- is there a normative way by which a human can get a 'plain English'
> explanation of a full POWDER document? We've talked about 
> transforming to HTML using XSLT, but it's not clear (to me) 
> whether the processor would offer such a service. Or do we 
> simply provide a boilerplate (English language) XSLT that may 
> be subsequently applied to a powder.xml file to get such an 
> explanation?
> I would suggest that we offer a boilerplate XSLT for 
> starters, or even a Web form that accepts the URL of a 
> powder.xml as input and returns an explanation of the contents.
> 2-  Rotan asked whether we have approached internet security 
> experts regarding the possibility of loopholes in the powder 
> certification/authentication part. Whilst I know these have 
> been built into the spec (including using POWDER to certify 
> DRs, and the use of
> sha1sums) I couldn't recall who was involved in that specification.
> Rotan mentioned Dr. Phillip Hallam-Baker of Verisign as a 
> contact in this area.
> 3- The current issuedby/@ src points to a URI which may refer 
> to a dc:creator or foaf:agent when transformed into POWDER-S. 
> Is there any flexibility in this; for example can Open ID be 
> used as an attribution source?
> 4- POWDER makes use of vocabularies to provide context to, 
> and a reference for, descriptions: however there is no 
> current registry of which vocabularies are available for an 
> author to use. In our examples we mention WCAG, ICRA and 
> Mobile OK; but how would an author aim to achieve 
> interoperability (and hence the widest reach) by providing 
> other descriptions in a well-understood vocabulary? If a 
> registry of such vocabularies were to be created, would it 
> have any relationship with the UWA DC Ontology 
> ( (either in terms of 
> technical specification or working practice)?
> Mail includes draft comments from KRS, follow up from me and 
> AP on 12/9

Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 10:03:36 UTC