- From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:44:35 +0300
- To: "Samuel Mart?n" <samuelm@dit.upm.es>
- Cc: kvotis@iti.gr, "'Shadi Abou-Zahra'" <shadi@w3.org>, "'ERT WG'" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Dear Samuel thank you in advance for the comments. We will try to incorporate all of them regards kostas > Dear Kostas, all, > > I am providing this as followup of yesterday's conference, regarding the > use > of rdf:ID or rdf:about to identify the Assertions. Shadi pointed out the > rdf:about in an Assertion identifies the assertion object, not the > TestCase. > Agreeing with that, then I wondered whether it should be rdf:ID or > rdf:about. As from RDF/XML Syntax Specification ( > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-ID-xml-base ): > >>> The rdf:ID attribute on a node element (not property element, that has > another meaning) can be used instead of rdf:about and gives a relative RDF > URI reference equivalent to # concatenated with the rdf:ID attribute > value. > So for example if rdf:ID="name", that would be equivalent to > rdf:about="#name". rdf:ID provides an additional check since the same name > can only appear once in the scope of an xml:base value (or document, if > none > is given), so is useful for defining a set of distinct, related terms > relative to the same RDF URI reference. > > A post from IBM developerWorks > (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tiprdfai/index.html) > sheds > a nice insight into the choice between both: > >>> As for choosing between rdf:ID and rdf:about, you will most likely want > to use the former if you are describing a resource that doesn't really > have > a meaningful location outside the RDF file that describes it. Perhaps it > is > a local or convenience record, or even a proxy for an abstraction or > real-world object (although I recommend you take great care describing > such > things in RDF as it leads to all sorts of metaphysical confusion; I have a > practice of only using RDF to describe records that are meaningful to a > computer). rdf:about is usually the way to go when you are referring to a > resource with a globally well-known identifier or location. > > So, the differences are: > 1. Lexical & syntactic: rdf:ID should be specified as an xml ID (ie, with > no > leading hash), and acts as a URI reference to the element within the > document. Meanwhile, rdf:about is a URI: it can be an absolute URI, or a > relative one (which is resolved against the document base URL, obtained > from > either context or xml:base), or a URI reference (that is, with a leading > hash). > 2. Semantic: rdf:ID behaves as an xml ID (I grasp this from context, I > have > not found the specific reference where rdf:ID is declared as being an xml > ID), so it must be unique in the context of an RDF/XML document with the > same xml:base URI. Given that, it seems more reasonable to use rdf:ID to > specify an assertion, as it would not appear again elsewhere in an EARL > report. Nonetheless, it is also perfectly correct to use an rdf:about, and > even to include several Assertion elements with the same rdf:about (it > would > just add more statements to the rdf node designed by the Assertion... > disregarding the result could either be valid EARL or not). > 3. Pragmatic: in practice, rdf:ID is used when you are trying to provide > *the* definition for the object (including when you are providing the > representation from a real-world entity), rdf:about when you are > referring > to an external entity with a well-known URI. That said, this is just a > matter of convenience. > > To sum it up, both are equivalent from and RDF point of view (although > rdf:ID could seem slightly more appropriate here, just as a practical > matter). In any case, proper syntax needs to be used ( #name or a full URI > for rdf:about, name for rdf:ID), and unicity must be preserved in case > rdf:ID is chosen. > > Regards, > > Samuel. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: kvotis@iti.gr [mailto:kvotis@iti.gr] > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 17 de octubre de 2012 10:48 > Para: Shadi Abou-Zahra > CC: ERT WG > Asunto: Re: ERT WG: Agenda for teleconference on Wednesday 17 October 2012 > > Dear Shadi, all > > please find attached an EARL example from our assessment tool. I have > tried > to make it as simple as possible by trying also to fulfill Shadi's > recommendations. However more details could be provided during our telco > > regards > > kostas > > > > >> ERT WG, >> >> The next teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 17 October 2012 at: >> * 14:30 to 15:30 Central European Time (CET) >> * 09:30 to 10:30 North American Eastern Time (ET) >> * 06:30 to 07:30 North American Pacific Time (PT) >> >> Please check the World Clock Meeting Planner to find out the precise >> date for your own time zone: >> - <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html> >> >> The teleconference information is: (Passcode 3794 - "ERWG") >> * +1.617.761.6200 >> * SIP / VoIP - http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim-SIP >> >> We also use IRC to support the meeting: (http://irc.w3.org) >> * IRC server: irc.w3.org >> * port: 6665 >> * channel: #er >> >> >> AGENDA: >> >> #1. Welcome >> >> >> #2. EARL 1.0 Test Suite >> - status check on test suite development >> - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/tests/> >> >> >> #3. Accessibility Support Database >> - preview on early conceptual draft >> - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ACT/asd> >> >> >> #3. Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0 >> - commenting period ending soon >> - <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/> >> >> >> #4. Techniques For Accessibility Evaluation And Repair Tools 1.0 >> - revival of a historical document >> - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-AERT-20000426> >> >> >> #5. Next Meeting >> >> >> Regards, >> Shadi >> >> -- >> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, >> W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools >> Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG) >> >
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 09:45:10 UTC