W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Is vCard range restriction on org:siteAddress necessary?

From: Alexander Dutton <alexander.dutton@oucs.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:38:41 +0000
Message-ID: <4D2314D1.6040704@oucs.ox.ac.uk>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
CC: Phil Archer <phil.archer@talis.com>, Linked Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
On 04/01/11 11:49, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> The separation between the Site and the address isn't necessary in
> general, but it is necessary in order to reuse vcard. An org:Site isn't
> a vcard:Address [*] hence the need for the indirection.

I think there's some confusion between the vCard and the address. I 
would have said that:

[] a org:Site, v:VCard ;
    v:adr [
      ex:addressLine1 "Unit 5" ;
      # or (if you prefer)
      a v:Address ;
      v:street-address "Unit 5" ;

I agree that addresses are not the same as sites, but I'm not sure that 
there's any need to use the org:siteAddress property to distinguish a 
site from its v:VCard. Using v:adr with an org:Site maintains that 
separation without needing the intermediate resource.

The vCard ontology doesn't give a general property for linking a thing 
to its v:VCard, which suggests to me that the only way to discover 
addresses in the general case is when properties in the vCard namespace 
are applied directly to people, places, etc. (In other words the v:VCard 
class simply means "a thing to which addresses, phone numbers, etc are 

I appreciate that claiming that org:siteAddress is unnecessary is 
somewhat orthogonal to the original question! Are there any cases where 
it might be needed?

Kind regards,


(Disclaimer: We take this conflated-vCard approach -- 
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:02:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:11 UTC