Re: [HTTP-in-RDF] sub-class approach for methods?

Hi,

Johannes Koch wrote:
> 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?

Yes, I was wondering the same. For the EARL values I was wondering what 
happens if someone does create an instance of say earl:Passed, and also 
provides a dc:title and dc:description. Should tools ignore these or do 
they override the rdfs:label and rdfs:comment?

Let's discuss this in a few minutes, it is general to all our documents.

<earl:Passed>
   <dc:title>Failed</dc:title>
   <dc:description>Actually, it didn't pass after all</dc:description>
</earl:Passed>

Best,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 12:17:21 UTC