W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [Recipes] new editor's draft

From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:03:35 -0400
Message-ID: <f032cc060805281103l5717e14ds203562843cf2c919@mail.gmail.com>
To: "SWD Working SWD" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Nice work Jon ... it looks like (unless I'm goofing something on this
end) that there are still a few remaining problems:

Recipe 4.

curl http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/examples-20080421/example4/
redirects to http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/examples-20080421/example4-content/2005-10-31.html
which says Example 3 in the HTML rather than Example 4.

likewise curl --header "Accept: application/rdf+xml"
redirects to http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/examples-20080421/example4-content/2005-10-31.rdf
which has URIs containing example3 instead of example4.

Recipe 5.

lacks ID attributes for ClassA, ClassB, propA and propB.

All this pointing and clicking and looking makes me think it would be
nice to have a vocabulary validator, that can somehow do some of this
checking. But perhaps it would have to be driven by instance data.

> An excellent point, but I think we already decided that providing recipes
> for RDFa and GRDDL was out of scope (for this version of the document at
> least) and inserted the following to cover that particular portion of our
> posterior:
> "Finally, it should be noted that the Recipes described in this Cookbook are
> not the only way to publish a vocabulary or ontology for use by Semantic Web
> applications. RDFa and its cousin GRDDL may in the near future provide an
> effective method for publishing documents for use by both people and
> machines. But a useful discussion of RDFa and GRDDL is well beyond the scope
> of this document."

Perfect, sorry I missed that initially. It would be fun to write it up
as a Note sometime.

Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 18:04:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:51 UTC