- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:17:37 +0000
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Let's wait until the discussion on what to do about vCards has concluded. Reading their mailing list, some of the proposed courses of action will cause an incompatible change to a lot of vcard data; the SPARQL examples are a side issue. There's no rush for SPARQL here so let's wait to see what the changes turn out to be then decide. It's editorial anyway. Andy Axel Polleres wrote: > > Hi all, > > small thing which we may want to add to the errata: > The pedantic-web folks [1] pointed me to some errors in: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0# > > which is not adhering to linked data principles, see [2] for details. > > I'd prefer to fix such issues in the upcoming version, i.e. not > dereferencing example > vocabularies/namespaces that have broken RDF from W3C specs. Ideally, we > can resolve > that by fixing http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0# > which -- as [2] suggests -- doesn't seem to be trivial, since we aren't > sure who can > actually fix it. otherwise, we may just want to change the example to > something else than vcard? > > best, > Axel > > > 1. http://pedantic-web.org/ > 2. > http://groups.google.com/group/pedantic-web/browse_thread/thread/229de280636a7614 >
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 10:18:04 UTC