- From: <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:08:07 -0400
- To: <janne.saarela@profium.com>
- Cc: <www-mobile@w3.org>
> One problem that appears to remain is the namespace of the
> Property element. It appears to originate from RDF schema namespace
> even though it is part of the RDF model and syntax namespace.
Ooops :-)!
> I should familiarize myself with the overloading requirement -
> perhaps you could send relevant links? Our software uses comment
> property for visualising metadata descriptions in user interfaces.
> We have not yet seen the need for overloading them in the solutions
> we have delivered.
Currently, the schema uses the rdfs:comment property like this:
<rdfs:comment>
Description: Indicates whether the device's display
supports color. "Yes" means color is supported. "No"
means the display supports only grayscale or black and white.
Type: Boolean
Resolution: Override
Examples: "Yes", "No"
</rdfs:comment>
Note important information (e.g. Type) is actually embedded in the
contents of the rdfs:comment property (rather than for example being
a separate property). I presumed an application that did profile validation
via the schema would need to micro-parse the contents of this property
to determine Type information.
Art
---
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 10:08:57 UTC