- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:47:59 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
> Certainly, although I don't see how we, when we're > external to the resource, can know enough to state > that some resource is newer version of the old. The resource doesn't change, just the representations. > My point is [not?] that we're introducing anything new, > just that we're introducing the idea that testSubject/reprOf > is threaded [...] Well, the idea of a resource is threaded in a sense. That doesn't enable us to *necessarily* conclude that we should drop old evaluations, just that there is a thread of entities assocaited with that resource. To ground it in a scenario... the thing that started this was of the broken page that is fixed by an author and re-evaluated. If you put both of the evaluations into a database, you want to test if the representation of the resource has been fixed. You can do that by using the threading of a resource as an assumption. There is nothing in EARL that says you must make that assumption, it is a function of the person controlling the database. From what you have said in the meetings I am fairly confident that your point is just that these rules cannot be compulsory for EARL; is that correct? If so, I agree - it's obviously the domain of data processing rather than data storage. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> . :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2001 17:49:20 UTC