- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:59:19 +0100
- To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Shadi Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb: > > Hi Johannes, > > Johannes Koch wrote: >> >> Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb: >> >>> Carlos A Velasco wrote: >> >>>> 1) Whether we make the schema "pure" RDFS. We can eliminate the OWL >>>> "thingies." We could make all instances from Outcome and TestMode >>>> simple >>>> RDF Resources. >>> >>> I thought we had come to this conclusion but I may be wrong. >> >> On the one hand, the range of earl:outcome makes clear that every >> object in a triple with an earl:outcome predicate is of type >> earl:Outcome. However, for clarity, I would make "#cannotTell" et al. >> explicitly an earl:Outcome, as it is in the version CarlosV sent. > > I don't know what you mean. In Carlos' current schema, we have: <earl:Outcome rdf:ID="cannotTell"> ... </earl:Outcome> which means a resource of type earl:Outcome. However each resource that is used as an object in a triple with predicate earl:outcome is _by the range of the earl:outcome property_ of type earl:Outcome. So it's not _necessary_ to give the predefined outcomes a type earl:Outcome. So it might also be <owl:Thing rdf:ID="cannotTell"> ... </owl:Thing> or <rdf:Description rdf:ID="cannotTell"> ... </rdf:Description> But I think, that it's clearer to be explicit. -- Johannes Koch Web Compliance Center - Fraunhofer FIT Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628 Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 09:00:06 UTC