List of comments on “Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER): Primer” (dated 8 September 2008)

There are 4 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).

question comments

Comment LC-2163: Commenter: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>; Context: Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER): Primer...; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
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
descriptions?

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
feedback.)

---Rotan.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: Following the replies, Rotan wrote: The absence of an authority could be the difference between consumer acceptance and consumer rejection. Those who have already created a sense of authority (such as existing SSL cert providers) will be in a better position to establish authority for DR certification, regardless of their competence to actually assess the described resources. Yes, this "bigger picture" is probably out of scope for the WG. No doubt others have been thinking about it.; Proposed Resolution:; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

editorial comments

Comment LC-2160: Commenter: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org> (archived message); Context: Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER): Primer...; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
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
only two.
"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."; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Proposed Resolution: Has been fixed in Version from October 23.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2161: Commenter: Simon Raboczi <s.raboczi1@uq.edu.au> (archived message); Context: Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER): Primer...; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
At the end of section 5 of the POWDER Primer draft, you have the
following RDFa example:

<html xmlns:wdrs="http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#">
<head>
<title>The English Civil War
</title>
</head>
<body>

....

<div>
<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
rule...
</div>

....

</body>
</html>
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>
tag instead?; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Proposed Resolution: Fixed in Version from October 23. I have added the whole of example 4-2 of the DR document and amended the text to reflect that it is full example and not just a snippet.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Add a comment.