- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:22:37 +0100
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, public-wai-ert@w3.org
On 27/12/06, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:50:14 +0100, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Danny, > > > > Thank you for your review comments, we will consider your suggestions. > > However, note that the names for the terms came from the respective RFCs > > and we didn't want to change too much (not even the camelBack notation). > > > > We would be interested in your implementation experience, especially in > > information about an application that makes use of the vocabulary. Thanks Shadi. > In particular, what happens when we carefully provide a proper human > readable > title for the resource. Does it still assume that the identifier we used > for it > is the most human-readable thing available? Well no, with the (GRDDLish) material I'm playing with any application will ignore the human-readability of a property identifier or resource's title. But if anyone has to debug this stuff they might not be so deterministic. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 December 2006 18:22:43 UTC