- From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:38:02 -0500
- To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> The information in the test-matrix.html file > only captures info regarding the test > purposes (or semantic requirements), not > necessarily all of the metadata for a particular test. > There is an additional description for a test > that more fully describes what happens in the > test itself, and should be used to supplement the > test purpose. It is this information that resides > in an older rendition that needs to be brought into > the metadata file. I would also suggest that it, along > with author, possibly creation date, revision date info > be carried along with each test, and translated into > prologue documentation -- probably javadoc for the > java transformation. nistmeta.xsl was primarily a demonstration of the viability of determining subject URI's from the description of the test. It should be possible to extend the concepts in nistmeta.xsl to put the metadata from the "older" representation into the body of each test. Generating Java documentation comments from inline metadata should be trivial. I think revision date could be automatically inserted into a comment by CVS. Not sure if it could be controlled enough to put just the revision date into the existing format. > > I noticed that you are still using rdf. Why? At the time I was doing it, it was easier just to convert one external metadata source into one external RDF document. Simplifying the metadata in the test definitions help authors, but there isn't a good reason why external compilations of metadata extracted from those tests aren't valid RDF.
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 11:37:56 UTC