This document:Public document·Annotated document·View comments·Search comments·Add a new comment·Send replies to comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER) Working Group
Other specs in this tool
Quick access to LC-2160
There are 4 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).
As we didn't have a quorum in UWA to discuss POWDER today, I'd like to
pose the following query...
According to the POWDER primer, certification of DRs is indicated in
order to elevate trust in descriptions.
Who is proposed to provide/manage such certifications? Would this be the
current SSL cert providers, for example?
If so, who says that these providers are qualified to assess/create
Or is the issue of the environment in which certification is managed
considered out of scope for the POWDER WG?
The question was raised internally within my company when someone
observed that this might be the creation of another "money making
scheme", as some people believe the SSL cert providers have been given a
license to print money.
Comments and clarifications welcome.
(Otherwise, we find POWDER intriguing, though we wonder what is meant by
"use of arbitrary RDF in POWDER documents" in the recent request for
Fabien Gandon has spotted this:
Reading he primer I saw what may be a typo: in the following paragraph
you mention twice "three ways of providing description" but you list
"The final key element of a Description Resource is the actual
description. There are *three *ways of providing this.
* As RDF (in a "descriptor set")
* As one or more tags (in a "tag set")
A DR must contain at least one of these *three *and may contain any
greater number of them, none of which may be empty."
At the end of section 5 of the POWDER Primer draft, you have the
following RDFa example:
<title>The English Civil War
<link rel="wdrs:describedBy" href="http://education.example.org/powder.rdf#DR_1
<p>Charles I came to the throne believing in his Divine Right to
I'm pretty sure <link> elements can only appear in the <head>, not in
the <body> as is done here. Perhaps this was intended to be an <a>
Add a comment.