- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:28:36 +0200
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Carlos Iglesias schrieb: >> Q1- Should we drop earl:CompoundAssertor in favor of foaf:Group? -That >> would make earl:SingleAssertor unnecessary and the whole construct would >> collapse to an earl:Assertor that is either earl:Software or foaf:Agent. > > The only problem would be that we'll loose the distinction between main and help Assertors, even taking into consideration that part of this distinction could also been seen with the (optional) test modes. Currently, earl:mainAssertor and earl:helpAssertor "can be a Person, Agent, Software, or recursively another Compound Assertor". A foaf:member of a foaf:Group must be a foaf:Agent. So we can't use earl:Software in a foaf:Group unless you make earl:Software a subclass of foaf:Agent, which we didn't want AFAIR. -- Johannes Koch BIKA Web Compliance Center - Fraunhofer FIT Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628 Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2007 07:29:07 UTC