- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:23 +0300
- To: 'Richard Schwerdtfeger' <schwer@us.ibm.com>, 'Lisa Seeman' <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Cc: 'Becky Gibson' <gibsonb@us.ibm.com>, 'Jon Gunderson' <jongund@uiuc.edu>, 'Liddy Nevile' <Liddy.Nevile@motile.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
- Message-id: <001601c467f4$68190d90$340aa8c0@lisaibm>
Also, I hope this is not intentional, but it would be good if we did not have UB in front of things that would be W3C specific. Also, we already have role so why are you now inserting contenttype. Lets be consistent. I am not going to go back to the HTML working group to do a name change for role. ... Another concern that is growing for me is RDF. One of the problems we are faced with on RDF is that NO browser supports it. Mozilla has some support but [Lisa Taking these points together re: referring to a non W3C namespace - a lot of W3C specifications I have seen give examples pointing to example namespaces such as the DC namespace. no brake from convention - it is what name spaces are for. Firstly - You can use role in XHTML to point to a content type that is defined in the UB or other schema. You can likewise reference to a W3C defined roles. It doesn't mater. a role can refer to a content type, A real point is that I think roles themselves, - not as role in XHTML but the definition that the role refers too. Defining the roles in RDF does not require browser support or make the HTML more complicated[Lisa: ] . They simply reference the type of content using a Qname I pointed to the UB schema because we define roles using RDF/OWL and I think this is important. Using RDF to define the roles means : a, If describe the cases or types of content in RDF, we make programmatically explicit the relationship between different classes and types of content. In making a description for each type obligatory (using OWL) we allow for anyone to access - in plain English (or French Spanish, Dutch...) -what the content type is meant to represent. b, It allows us to miss out some definitions of content types without there being the least loss to the implementation or the speciation. Defining types as sub classes and type instances in RDF allows us to add new ones at any time Maybe I am just more used to making mistakes then others, but I would bet we will never have the full model of types of content found on websites - that is why the definition of types or roles needs to be done in a programmatically meaningful, extendible , way. C. Because content types are not limited to thoughs that the W3C defined, web communities can have there own, derived, content types. For example IMPS and educational content typically use : tutor, help, glossary, back, up, next If the user agent is only familiar with the base classes, then it can handle a derived class the same way it would handle it's parent. However educational tools would have a special features for a derived schema created by the IMS educational content consortium. They can sit on the IMS website, or a government agency or UB access site or even IBM -it doesn't mater. One of the many reasons to love RDF (That reminds me a song) Rich - am i responding to a cross posting thread? :) keep well Lisa
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 05:41:18 UTC