- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:35:53 -0000
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
> We need to know how to say that comments are things that
> we aggregate,
Well, RDF has no implied logic of it's own, so we don't actually have these
problems. For example, a jumper can have two colours:-
:jumper :color :red, :purple .
But a person can only have one country of birth:-
:Sean :birthPlace :UK .
So:-
:Sean :birthPlace :UK, :USA .
Is illogical to a human... but a tool wont know that, unless you tell it.
{ :x :birthPlace :a, :b . :a :notEqualTo :b . }
log:implies
{ <> a :schemaInconsistency . }
does that make sense? In other words, it is (IMO) allowable to have two
completely differering comments for one subject, if you allow that in a
related logical assertion (of course, you could then have a contradictory
assertion, which is where trust comes in.....).
> "the best way to get this to happen in the tool is to go through the
> wobblywidget, but it is more fun to use the wiibblywodgt if you
> are relying on a mouse"
Well, don't get me started on the wobblywidget. I think that as WAI people,
we need to look very closely indeed at how the accessibility advantages
raised by the recent development of the wiibblywodgt can be applied to the
mroe universal wobblywidget. It is of my own personal opinion that this
cannot be achieved by normal development processes, but then that is one
for the relevant group chairs to decide on.
--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2001 10:39:18 UTC