- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:36:02 +0100
- To: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- CC: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Johannes, all, Ref: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswHttpVocabularyInRdfComments> Johannes Koch wrote: >> Date > > Recommending the use of a date property was a comment on an earlier > draft. These dates are not part of HTTP. And so we think there should > not be a specific date property in the HTTP-in-RDF vocabulary. ThatÄs > why we proposed the use of dc:date here. My suggestion would be to invite further advice on this topic. Consider a simple tweak to say something like: "Since dates are not part of the HTTP specification, we did not want to define such a property in the HTTP-in-RDF vocabulary. We understood the definition of dc:date to be broad enough to apply to timestamps. We would be happy to consider terms for timestamps provided by other RDF vocabularies." PS: the fact that we added a date property in response to a comment is irrelevant. We adopted it and should explain why we chose this design. Regards, 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 Thursday, 12 February 2009 10:36:38 UTC