- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:34:46 +0100
- To: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi Chris, Chris Ridpath wrote: >> Also, I prefer to use rdf:id rather than rdf:about... >> > (Is the "ID" uppercase?) Like: > <earl:software rdf:ID="assertorTool"> Yes, you are right. It is upper case "rdf:ID". > And then is it referenced like?: > <earl:assertedBy rdf:resource="#assertorTool" /> Yes, exactly like this (analogue to using "id" and "<a href=#" in HTML). > I didn't notice before that our assertion doesn't require a date. It is > required on the test subject and I think it should be required by the > assertion too. Was there a good reason for dropping the date on the > assertion? I don't think there was ever a date property in the assertion class. The idea is that you want to time-stamp the thing (subject) you are testing at the time of testing it. A date in the assertion does not clarify if this is the time the assertion was made or the subject was tested. It also makes aggregated (compound) assertions (or evidence clauses) ambiguous. > Once I get the info on the http:request/response I can finish the example. Johannes and Carlos sent regrets for this week. Let's aim to discuss this next week. Regards, Shadi -- Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | WAI-TIES Project, http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, Sophia-Antipolis - France | Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 17:34:49 UTC