ERT WG

referencing URI in WebContent class

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Nov/0009

SAZ: Plenty of discussion on list regarding this issue.
... RDF:about is not sufficient so we need additional property.
... RDF: property was repeated to simplify query.
... Tradeoff is slightly longer query or duplicate propery which brings up issue of duplication.
... And what is recorded if URL is redirected is also problem.

CI: In theory there is no way so determine if used 2 times.

JK: About redirect - Use URI for resource that you ultimately get.
... There will be 2 requests if redirected. Don't mix the 2 and should be OK.

SAZ: If referring to FTP resource, for example, then we can record URI but not content.
... So we need property to record content or we use file:content class to record such resources.

JK: If we do that then we don't need URI:uri property.

SAZ: In general we need class to describe content that is not HTTP (like local files or FTP resources).

<JohannesK> JK: BasicContent (source property)

<JohannesK> JK: FileContent extends BasicContent (filename property)

<JohannesK> JK: WebContent extends BasicContent (uri property)

<JohannesK> JK: HttpContent extends WebContent (httpRequest, httpResponse properties)

<shadi> #1 TestSubject has property to record the source

<shadi> #2 FileContent is a subclass of TestSubject and has a property to record the filename

<shadi> #3 WebContent is a subclass of TestSubject and has a property to record the uri (as well as http request/response stuff, maybe also other protocols in the future)

CI: We discussed testing other things so do we need class (even if optional) for recording content?

<shadi> #1 TestSubject remains generic

<shadi> #2 BasicContent is a subclass of TestSubject and has property to record the source

<shadi> #3 FileContent is a subclass of TestSubject and has a property to record the filename

<shadi> #3 FileContent is a subclass of BasicContent and has a property to record the filename

<shadi> #4 WebContent is a subclass of BasicContent and has a property to record the uri (as well as http request/response stuff, maybe also other protocols in the future)

JK: questions whether we should have an HTTP:content class.

SAZ: summary - If content has uri then use WebContent class if no uri then use FileContent class.
... And which namespace to use?

CI: We're having trouble fitting into existing classes so may need to create new classes.

SAZ: Do we really need to create new class HttpContent or can we add properties to other class?
... Will make language easier to learn and use if only one class.

CI: If you need to record request or response then should be httpcontent. We need valid use case for WebContent class.

SAZ: Non HTTP content is likely to be very small. WebContent class should cover most cases.

CI: If explain use cases for all classes then should not be a problem with multiple classes.

SAZ: Take discussion to list and think about it a bit more.

proposal for FileContent class?

SAZ: There is a use case for FileContent class and no good reason on list not to use it.

RESOLUTION: We adopt FileContent class.

JK: Suggest that all filename property is lower case.

<scribe> ACTION: SAZ will send complete proposal including FileContent class to list for discussion. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/15-er-minutes.html#action01]