trusting providers Re: Accessible web content services.

Simplest thing is to use existing properties that describe the  
authors/creators, e.g. from Dublin Core, FOAF, etc. The cnfusion is over  
what exactly someone did - whether they are listed as author because they  
created the website (as in the generator value for the meta element that  
many tools put in - there's a quick way to get a sense of how good tools  
usually are in practice) or because they wrote the content.

For checking the accessibility, I would suggest looking for EARL  
statements. There are a number of tools capable of producing EARL, which  
gives you a more detailed view than A, double-A, triple-A but also allows  
you to encode things that simply claim things at that granularity (often  
unreliable in detail, but a useful rough guide). One of the nice things  
about EARL is that it requires a statement about who made the claim - some  
people might produce stuff that's very good but make restricted claims for  
it, while others might claim everything but typically exaggerate a lot...

serious tools for RDF such as Redland or Jena already allow you to track  
where the particular assertions you are using came from, which helps with  
the provenance. If you want to get further into it you need to look at  
things like signed XML - not too hard to do, but not something that people  
currently make a habit of, although this is changing in particlar in the  
FOAF world.

cheers

Chaals

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:37:51 +0100, <David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk> wrote:

>
> What's the vocabulary we need for rdf? Is it worth starting
> a new ontology for this area?
>
> What short phrases adequately capture, via an online source if necessary,
> opinions about website designs?
>
> 1. HasTripleA. this organisation has designed some number of triple A  
> sites.
>
> 2. 508Experience. this organisation has provided 508 compliant designs.
> 3. reference.   link to a site designed by this organisation for  
> reference.
>
> I can't see why this area isn't worth its own vocabulary?
>
> That's two uses for rdf I've come across in one week. Spooky.
>
> regards DaveP
>
> ** snip here **
>



-- 
Charles McCathieNevile     charles@sidar.org
Fundación Sidar             http://www.sidar.org

Received on Saturday, 31 July 2004 03:48:55 UTC