RE: Validation in CC/PP

Hi Art

> > 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.

Yes I'd agree with you there. My personal feeling is CC/PP adopted RDF
before RDF was really finished. However, at this stage, we are stuck with
RDF. CC/PP really needs validation and data types, both of which RDF is only
now coming round to considering. Alternatively we could get these features
in DAML, so another solution would have been for CC/PP to use DAML (or
possibly the forthcoming Web Ontology Language)
 
However, due to the CC/PP charter, we are stuck with RDF so I'm just trying
to propose pragmatic solutions. 

> Why don't you guys just re-do CC/PP in RELAX-NG or XML Schema :-)

"Why don't you guys just" ... if only it was that easy :-)

Two problems
i) The CC/PP charter says CC/PP has to be based on RDF. 
ii) The CC/PP charter says it has to be backward compatible with UAProf.

So we can't make changes like this without changing the charter and getting
agreement from WAP Forum.

regards

Mark H. Butler, PhD
Research Scientist                HP Labs Bristol
mark-h_butler@hp.com
Internet: http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut/

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 04:53:57 UTC