- From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
- Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:09:44 +0000
- To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
- CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Thanks very much Andrea, I appreciate you taking the time to look at this. Don't beat yourself up about it - we both worked on this aspect (so maybe we should beat up each other? :-) ). I'd like to ping Stasinos as well but it looks as if we're good to go for an erratum plus as much publicity as I can create, tomorrow. Phil On 07/11/2010 21:52, Andrea Perego wrote: > Hi, Phil. > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Phil Archer<phil@philarcher.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Through a discussion on another list, I have realised that there is an >> error in the way we have defined the wdrs:describedby property: we give >> two conflicting definitions of the same thing. This has come to light >> when I've followed up on comments that people have made about the >> property that amount to "we can't use wdrs:describedby because it's >> specific to POWDER" >> >> No!! It isn't - or at least, it shouldn't be. So here's the problem in >> detail. >> >> [snip] > > The issue you are pointing out is clearly a typo - and I have my share > of fault for having missed it while editing the spec. So, yes, I agree > that wdrs:describedby MUST NOT have any predefined range. > >> Proposal >> ======== >> >> 1. Edit Section 4.1.4 of the DR doc to replace: >> >> "We define the RDF property wdrs:describedby with a domain of >> rdf:Resource and a range of wdrs:Document. This is the class of POWDER >> documents and is a sub class of owl:Ontology. The meaning of >> wdrs:describedby is identical to the describedby relationship type >> defined above so that:" >> >> with >> >> "We define the RDF property wdrs:describedby, the meaning of which is >> identical to the describedby relationship type defined above so that:" >> >> 2. Edit the namespace document at >> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby so that wdrs:describedby >> has no defined range. > > I totally agree with your proposal. I can take care of revising the > POWDER-S ontology and namespace document. > >> [snip] >> >> Does removing the range restriction on wdrs:decribedby affect >> conformance? The two conformance statements in the DR doc are not >> affected. However, unlikely as it may be, it is possible that someone >> has built an implementation that reasons that a wdrs:describedby >> property links to a POWDER document. Removing the restriction could >> conceivably have an adverse effect therefore. I believe this to be >> highly unlikely but it remains a possibility. Aside from that, the >> change is entirely backwards compatible. > > I agree. IMHO, the existence of POWDER implementations assuming that > wdrs:describedby links to a POWDER document should not prevent us from > fixing this error in the specs, but it is important that their authors > are aware of that. I wonder how we can give this revision the widest > visibility. > >> In terms of the W3C process document I think we may come under 3.3 which >> says that: >> >> "clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the specification in >> such a way that an agent whose conformance was once unclear becomes >> clearly conforming or non-conforming." >> >> Conformance doesn't come into it but even so, an erratum may be >> insufficient and we may well have to seek a review for a "Proposed >> Edited Recommendation." >> >> Incidentally, while we're at it, we could incorporate the existing >> erratum [5] which will help get the MIME type registered (this is still >> outstanding). > > +1 > > Cheers, > > Andrea > -- Phil Archer http://philarcher.org/ @philarcher1 Consultant | W3C Talis Platform | Mobile Web Initiative http://www.talis.com/platform/ | http://www.w3.org/Mobile
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2010 22:10:25 UTC