W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Use or alias in vCard/RDF?

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:53:36 +0100
To: Semantic web list <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200611271953.38377.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>

On Monday 27 November 2006 19:22, Norman Walsh wrote:
> Can we move this up a level?

Yup! :-)

> There are several properties in the vCard ontology that are
> conceptually "the same as" some other properties from other
> ontologies. Off the top of my head:
[...]
> It seems to me that we can/should/could either deprecate all of these
> in favor of the properties from other namespaces or we could keep the
> local aliases and make them (some flavor of) sameAs the other
> properties.

I think that since vCard is so widely adopted, in one of its 
standardized forms or property soup, that we should provide the most 
1-to-1 mapping from vCard we possibly can to ease adoption. Leave vCard 
as it is (even when it is somewhat unappealing) and use RDFS or OWL to 
add the necessary links we require. I fear that if we change too much 
in it, people will think that "uh, they say it is vCard, but it is not 
all vCard" and reject it on that first look. 

I think we should think of vCard as being a card, but that it belongs to 
a foaf:Agent. That is, I hope we could have a foaf:has_vcard property 
with domain foaf:Agent and range vcard:VCard. Would it then be a 
reasonable extension to vCard to have the converse, vcard:belongs_to?

Cheers,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Programmer / Astrophysicist / Ski-orienteer / Orienteer / Mountaineer
kjetil@kjernsmo.net
Homepage: http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/     OpenPGP KeyID: 6A6A0BBC
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 18:50:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:12 GMT