Re: [ACTION] represenation of simple and more complicated HTTP conversation in RDF

the containers solution looks like it will work. it also has the added 
advantage of being very intuitive :)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
To: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ACTION] represenation of simple and more complicated HTTP 
conversation in RDF


>
> Hi,
>
>
> Johannes Koch wrote:
>> I took an action item about modelling simple and more complicated HTTP 
>> conversation in RDF. Three use cases: 1. simple request/response, 2. 
>> transparent content negotiation, 3. redirection
>
> Thanks for this overview! One more important scenario would be a typical 
> "Web unit" containing an HTML page, a CSS page, and maybe some images. 
> According to the examples you provided, each one of these would be 
> recorded in a separate instance of the WebContent class with IDs like 
> "wc1", "wc2", "wc3", etc. Right?
>
> Following the model outlined above, we would now need to express the 
> relationship between the instances of the WebContent class as we don't 
> have a mean to do it right now. We will need a way to group such resources 
> (for "Web units") and sometimes also the sequence of these items (think of 
> redirect or language negotiation).
>
> One solution would be to use simple RDF containers. For example rdf:bag 
> for "Web units" and rdf:seq for other resources where the sequence is 
> essential. The test subject would be the respective RDF container. Here 
> some code examples:
>
> SCENARIO 1, "Web Unit":
>
> earl:subject
> |- rdf:bag
> |  |- rdf:item -> "wc1"
> |  |- rdf:item -> "wc2"
> |  |- rdf:item -> "wc3"
> |  |- ...
> |- ...
>
>
> SCENARIO 2, "Language Negotiation":
>
> earl:subject
> |- rdf:seq
> |  |- rdf:item -> "wc1"
> |  |- rdf:item -> "wc2"
> |  |- rdf:item -> "wc3"
> |  |- ...
> |- ...
>
>
> Another solution to express the relationship between the individual 
> resources is by using explicit properties such as dc:isPartOf, dc:hasPart, 
> and probably other too (to express "A-after-B" type relationships).
>
> What do people think? Is the solution using containers sufficient and 
> complete?
>
> 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, 27 November 2006 17:49:04 UTC