- From: <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 15:58:52 -0400
- To: <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-ccpp-wg@w3.org>, <www-mobile@w3.org>
> From: ext Butler, Mark [mailto:Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > > Well experience with existing CC/PP > vocabularies has shown that even with a small number of > profiles, vendors > make mistakes when creating profiles. For example they get > property names > wrong e.g. use PixelsAspectRatio not PixelAspectRatio. There > is also no > agreement on property literal values so two vendors might use the same > literal to indicate different capabilities or different > literals to indicate > the same capability e.g. "1.2.1/June 2000" and "1.2.1" are > used to refer to > the same capability. Seems like these are general RDF issues rather than CC/PP-specific issues. Why don't you guys just re-do CC/PP in RELAX-NG or XML Schema :-) Art --- FYI - the following online RDFS visualization service may be useful: http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/frodo/RDFSViz/
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 15:59:02 UTC