- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:51:59 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
Hmmm, I think, I'm really tired.
>The values could be defined with a minimal required set inside the
>specification + a Note to define extensibility or new vocabulary, so
>if a community with particular interests could propose extension to
>the vocabulary in a defined way (ala IETF for mime-types).
Therefore if a community with particular interests wants to extend
the vocabulary, this community could propose extension in a normative
way (ala IETF for mime-types).
>accessible for community and if this community of practice could
>still defines the vocabulary as an ontology behind for the processing
>machine BUT at least for human, the vocabulary will be accessible. So
>it will be a double benefit : ease of use and richness of ontologies
>behind the scene.
and this community of practices could defines the vocabulary as an
ontology, therefore machine could process it AND it will still be
accessible for human. It will have the double benefit: ease of use
and richness of ontologies.
Damn... it was not clear.
--
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
http://www.w3.org/QA/
--- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 11:14:31 UTC