RE: metadata is_a module

Al,

The Voice Browser working group is having a face-to-face meeting all 
this week and will discuss the grammar spec during that time.  The 
3 issues you raise will require some group discussion before we can 
fully respond.

Wrt metadata the grammar spec followed the precedent of VoiceXML 1.0
which I understand followed the precedent of HTML.  We will review
the new direction of W3C.  Thank you for the heads up on other
relevant spec work!

Regards,
  Andrew Hunt
  Co-editor, Grammar Spec

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Al Gilman
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 2:30 PM
> To: www-voice@w3.org
> Subject: metadata is_a module
> 
> 
> 
> The loose language inherited from the HTML tradition in the area of
> metadata is not the highest and best way to explain the metadata to be
> incorporated in grammar declaration documents.
> 
> The 'author' field should be traceable to Dublin Core 'creator' by
> machinable relationships expressed in normative exhibits in this
> specification.
> 
> See the discussion of schemas and tracing the sense of metastuff in 
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlgl
> 
> which is just out.  See also the call for review at
> 
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2001JulSep/0604.html
> 
> We, W3C, should be developing a metadata module for grammars, schemas, and
> all manner of metacode that reflects best current practice and 'exports the
> semantics' well.  And speech grammar should use it, not re-invent or copy it.
> 
> Al
> 
> Disclaimer:  These are individual remarks, despite any hats I may wear in
> WAI-PF.  Have not been discussed among the group.
>

Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 19:30:57 UTC