- From: Carlos A Velasco <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:30:39 +0200
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Dear all, Following my action item: <http://www.w3.org/2006/04/05-er-minutes.html#action03> Here comes a summary of the issues. In the HTTP-in-RDF note [1], the Request class decomposes the URI in all its components: scheme, host, port, etc. In EARL, however, we are discussing whether to use a single property, earl:uri. IMHO there are no use cases that can favour one or the other approach in a decisive manner, but there is a clear *inconsistency problem* with the actual approach that might lead to confusion. My original proposal was to take the URI outside both EARL and [1] in its own namespace, with a single class and the properties of [2]. Then, both EARL and [1] can use it (and any other RDF app for that matter). The only argument against this is, of course, verbosity (OK, and maybe a little bit of complexity ;-) ). I can live with both solutions (I like a little bit more the URI-in-RDF way), but if we follow the single property solution, I would put it anyway in its own namespace (RFC2396), so we can use it as well in [1] without circular references between EARL and [1]. That is all, I think. Others? regards, carlos [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20060320 [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt -- Dr Carlos A Velasco - http://access.fit.fraunhofer.de/ Fraunhofer-Institut für Angewandte Informationstechnik FIT [Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT)] Barrierefreie Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie für Alle Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany) Tel: +49-2241-142609 Fax: +49-2241-1442609
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 09:31:36 UTC