- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:39:07 +0200
- To: Carlos A Velasco <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi Carlos, Carlos A Velasco wrote: > Hi Shadi, > > Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: >> Dear group, >> >> First, please make sure you have read the summary of the issue in: >> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Aug/0012> >> >> We have discussed this issue again during the teleconference of 29 >> August [2] but with no definitive resolution. There are two specific >> questions to the group: >> >> #1. Any objections to dropping earl:Content in favor of http:Content? >> (these classes are redundant and should be merged *somewhere*) > > I object: there is earl:Content not necessarily fetched via HTTP. > >> #2. Should http:Content be separated out from HTTP-in-RDF, for example >> in some other namespace? In another document too? > > Content must be in another namespace, and being consistent, in other > document. If a "Content" class is created in a new namespace and described in a different document (i.e. it is independent of HTTP but an abstract description of content), do you then still think we need earl:Content? 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 Wednesday, 5 September 2007 09:39:15 UTC