Re: ERT WG: Agenda for teleconference on Wednesday 13 December, 2006

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:01:26 +0530, Carlos Iglesias  
<carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org> wrote:

>> 3. pick up on new listed issues
>>   <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues>
>>   - reconsider stability of foaf:Organisation
>
> I'm in favour of the adoption.

ditto

>>   - consider renaming earl:validity
>
> I think "outcome" instead "validity" makes sense, the only problem I see
> is that the validity levels staff is one of the most stable and
> interoperable parts of EARL, nevertheless this new EARL is quite
> different to the previous one in several aspects and a break line could
> be necessary.

Like Carlos, I am nervous about changing one of the basic bits of EARL. On  
the other hand, an o:sameAs and we're set, so I can live with this if the  
group decides to do it. It just means we effectively require another owl  
property to be understood by good processing tools.

>>   - consider stand-alone pointer vocabulary
>
> It makes sense if we want to make further adoption easier (WCL, TSD
> TF...) and if we expect the language to grow with new classes of
> pointers

Yes.

>>   - consider WCL "groups of resources"
>
> I think this is an interesting work that could be reused in EARL and
> should keep an eye on it but, what do you mean exactly with "wait for
> the WCL method for defining groups of resources unambiguously"?

This can be re-used if it gets done, but as far as I can tell we don't  
have to do anything about it either way except make sure that we don't  
somehow over-constrain the kind of thing that we can talk about...

cheers

Chaals


-- 
   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com          Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com

Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 06:32:43 UTC