Re: For review by Friday 8 April 2011

Hi Shadi and all,

These are my answers:

>
> Please review and respond to the following points by Friday 8 April:
>
>
> #1. Separating conformance/restrictions for vocabulary definitions
>
>  - previous discussions:
>  -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item04>
>  -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-er-minutes#item02>
>
>  - more detailed explanation:
>  -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0007>
>
>  - questions to consider:
>  -- can you live with conformance/restrictions moving out of the vocabulary
> definition documents, and into a more specific document?
>

Yes, but it should be normative.


>  -- if so, what other guidance would go along with this guidance on
> conformance/restrictions for EARL tool developers?
>

I agree with the OWL docs example pointed by Christophe.


>  -- is it imaginable that the focus (and title, if needed) of the EARL
> Guide could shift to match the guidance we want to provide?
>

Yes


>
> References:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues#conformance>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-EARL10-Schema-20091029/#conformance>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#conformance>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#conformance>
>
>
> #2. HTTP-in-RDF Message Header
>
>  - previous discussion:
>  -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item05>
>
>  - proposed solution:
>  -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0008>
>
>  - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?
>

Yes


>
> References:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#MessageClass>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#MessageClass>
>
>
> #3. HTTP-in-RDF PATCH Method
>
>  - previous discussion:
>  -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item05>
>
>  - proposed solution:
>  -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Apr/0001>
>
>  - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?
>

I agree with Phillip: "According to the paragraph about http entity headers
from the spec (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec7.html) an
entity header can be either a predefined header or an extension-header (==
message-header). So making "EntityHeader" a new subclass of "MessageHeader"
is the best way, I think."


>
> References:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#MethodClass>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#MethodClass>
>
>
> #4. Proposed batch-resolutions
>
>  - suggestions for resolutions to open comments:
>  -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0010>
>
>  - note: item #5 dct:identifier/status code will be handled separately
>
>  - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?
>

I agree with Philip: "Yes for all except #3. (use other prefix instead of
"http").
I understand the problem but I don't like the idea of shortening an (well
known) acronym. But from the given suggestions I would prefer "htp" for
H(ypertext) T(ransfer) P(rotocol)."


All the best,
Emmanuelle
-- 
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Fundación y Seminario SIDAR
URL: www.sidar.org
email: emmanuelle@sidar.org