- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:07:20 +0200
- To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb: > Hi Johannes, > > Johannes Koch wrote: >> Hi group, >> >> in EARL we defined the outcome values as sub-classes of >> earl:OutcomeValue, and the test modes as sub-classes of earl:TestMode. >> >> Should we use the same approach for the methods and status codes in >> HTTP-in-RDF? > > I believe this would be in-line with the comments from AWWSW: > - <http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswHttpVocabularyInRdfComments> > > If so, then maybe this is indeed the better way to go... Well, what they suggested is to create sub-classes for the status code groups, e.g. <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#StatusCode3xx"> <dc:title xml:lang="en">Redirection</dc:title> <dc:description xml:lang="en">A status code starting with 3</dc:description> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2008/http#StatusCode"/> </rdfs:Class> They did _not_ suggest du make every status code into a sub-class of StatusCode. I still find it somehow ugly to create a sub-class for something that is really only _one_ instance of a class. Or do we expect to have more instances of a class bla:StatusCode404 or earl:Passed? -- Johannes Koch Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT Web Compliance Center Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628 Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 12:07:56 UTC