- From: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:47:09 +0200
- To: bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org>
- CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 27.03.2011 17:37, bergi wrote: > Yesterday I had a look at the evaluation and report language schema and > was thinking about the missing part for the webid tests. I have created > a proposal for a generic authentication schema [1]. > > Here are some examples [2] how the output could look like. The > 'TestResult' gets a new child 'Authentication'. The 'Authentication' > itself can have a 'Status' or the 'Status' can be assigned to an 'ID'. > In the WebID case a missing x509v3 san uri extension can be represented > with a 'Failure' (sub property of 'Status') as a child of > 'Authentication'. If the WebID certificate contains multiple uris each > 'ID' can have it's own 'Status'. I did a brief look at an example. Missing some object properties with classes range and domain. For easy reading this vocabluary the properties should be lowercase and classes should be uppercase. You should also consider using the simpler rdf:parseType="Literal" instead of reference to resources. Regards, Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk
Received on Monday, 28 March 2011 09:48:10 UTC