W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > May 2013

Re: ORG and reuse of vCard Ontology

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 08:53:13 +0100
Message-ID: <518B55E9.6070701@gmail.com>
To: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
CC: "public-gld-wg@w3.org" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Hi Renato,

On 09/05/13 04:58, Renato Iannella wrote:
>
> On 8 May 2013, at 19:13, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is greyed out. I was keen to reflect the "recommendation" to use vcard in the diagram.
>> If this is problematic I will remove it from the diagram. [A replacement diagram is in preparation in any case.]
>
> Or add a legend to the diagram.

I've replaced the vcard box with some brief text saying we "recommend 
the vcard ontology".

>> Is it?  I don't see in the current draft anything which defines the properties of a v:Location so it's hard to tell.
>
> Aside: There is a small bug in LODE (the OWL to HTML converter) and it seemed to have misrepresented the Location description...will be fixed.

OK.

Looking at the OWL I didn't see much in the way of axioms about 
v:Location. Possibly the relevant properties are open-domain. I 
sometimes use the non-standard (but not harmful) trick of declaring 
minCard(0) restrictions as a way to hint that a property might be used 
on a class without requiring it.[1]

>> Are you satisfied with this response?
>
>
> Yes.

Great, thanks for confirming.

Cheers,
Dave

[1] The question of how to say "property X is mandatory but if you want 
to express concept x here then please use property X for it" is a 
recurrent need in semweb modelling :)
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 07:53:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:25 UTC