- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:00:51 +0200
- To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb: > Diego Berrueta wrote: >> 2) It is not clear whether the conformance requirements must take into >> account the RDF(S) semantics. For instance, is the following report >> valid wrt requirement 2? >> >> ex:assertion rdf:type ex:MyAssertionClass . >> ex:MyAssertionClass rdfs:subClassOf earl:Assertion . >> >> Strictly speaking, there isn't any earl:Assertion in the report. >> However, RDF(S) Semantics dictate that the triples above entail >> (ex:assertion, rdf:type, earl:Assertion), thus making the requirement >> pass. >> >> We suggest to explicitly clarify whether the RDF(S) entailment rules >> must be applied before checking the conformance rules. I think they must be applied. > I think that part of the issue is that we use the wording "referenced > by", and point to specific classes. For instance: > > * "Every Assertion must have exactly one Assertor (referenced by > earl:assertedBy)" > > Here an attempt at refining this wording (as suggested by Diego): > > * "Every Assertion must have exactly one Assertor (an Object of > earl:assertedBy)" > > Is this correct, and is it what we want? With RDFS (domain and range), every resource being used as a subject in a triple with an earl:assertedby predicate is an earl:Assertion; and every resource being used as an object in this triple is an earl:Assertor. Is it sufficient to say that we want at least one triple with an earl:assertedBy predicate? -- 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, 3 June 2009 09:01:24 UTC