- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:48:04 +0300
- To: David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk, redux@splintered.co.uk, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
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