- From: Alan Dean <alan.dean@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:44:26 +0000
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Johannes Koch wrote: > > http:MessageHeader > |- http:fieldName (rdfs:Literal) > |- http:headerName (predefined httph:HeaderName resource) > |- http:fieldValue (rdfs:Literal or http:HeaderElement) > > httph:HeaderName [with predefined resources for each registered header] > > http:HeaderElement > |- http:elementName (rdfs:Literal) > |- http:elementValue (rdfs:Literal) > |- http:param (http:Param) That is starting to look cleaner and simpler to me, but I have a couple of questions: 1. You state "httph:HeaderName" - is "httph:" a typo or a new namespace? 2. Should "http:fieldValue" be "rdfs:Literal or http:HeaderElement"? This forces the document producer to choose between two alternative formats that don't have a ready semantic equivalence test. Would it not be better to allow both a literal value and a formalised decomposition? That way, the document consumer can choose which to use, e.g. (where http:headerValues is a new invention): <http:MessageHeader> <http:fieldName>Accept</http:fieldName> <http:fieldValue>application/xhtml+xml, text/html; q=0.9, */*</http:fieldValue> <http:headerName rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2006/http-header#accept"/> <http:headerValues rdf:parseType="Collection"> <http:HeaderElement> <http:elementName>application/xhtml+xml</http:elementName> <http:param> <http:Param> <http:paramName>q</http:paramName> <http:paramValue>1.0</http:paramValue> </http:Param> </http:param> </http:HeaderElement> <http:HeaderElement> <http:elementName>text/html</http:elementName> <http:param> <http:Param> <http:paramName>q</http:paramName> <http:paramValue>0.9</http:paramValue> </http:Param> </http:param> </http:HeaderElement> <http:HeaderElement> <http:elementName>*/*</http:elementName> <http:param> <http:Param> <http:paramName>q</http:paramName> <http:paramValue>1.0</http:paramValue> </http:Param> </http:param> </http:HeaderElement> </http:headerValues> </http:MessageHeader> This way, if you want raw output, just seek the http:fieldName / http:fieldValue pair but if you want formalization and decomposition, seek the http:headerName / http:headerValues pair. Further, if a document producer only emitted: <http:MessageHeader> <http:fieldName>Accept</http:fieldName> <http:fieldValue>application/xhtml+xml, text/html; q=0.9, */*</http:fieldValue> </http:MessageHeader> ... then an intermediary could easily extend the document with the formalization and decomposition without having to overwrite the original raw data. Regards, Alan Dean http://thoughtpad.net/alan-dean
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 12:53:24 UTC