- From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 17:11:13 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
As for how we notate comments... Charles suggested >:len :asserts {:apple :comment "well, it's really sort of a reddish yellow >with a touch of violet haze"} . I agree with what you're getting at, but I think that unfortunately this isn't the way to notate it. I say "unfortunately" because I'm finding it awkward to reduce everything to triples, as RDF requires. The problem is that if we consider these two statements :len: :asserts {:apple :comment "well, it's really sort of reddish yellow" } :chaaz :assert {:apple :comment "to my eye it's more of a tan" } they indicate a disagreement between :len and :chaaz because they describe an apple with a single property called "comment", and :len and :chaaz disagree about the value of that property. It's the same disagreement as saying :len :asserts {:apple :color "red" } :chaaz :assert {:apple :color "yellow"} Now, a human reading these, who knows what the word "comment" means, will treat these two pairs of statements differently. But an RDF interpreter with the general rule that :p :asserts {:x :y1 } :q :asserts {:x :y2 } are contradictions if y1 does not equal y2 will consider the comment constructs to be contradictions. That's why I wrote this as :c :type :comment . :c :author: :len . :c :applies_to :apple . (this can be be abbreviated but these are the underlying meaning) At least, this is how I interpret it. People who think otherwise, please pile on <smile /> Len -- Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple University (215) 204-2247 (voice) (800) 750-7428 (TTY) http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday mailto:kasday@acm.org Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 17:10:58 UTC