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 21:16:55 +0100
To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc: Semantic web list <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200611272116.57364.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>

On Monday 27 November 2006 20:27, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> Hi Kjetil
> > 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?
> If you really mean it, could you expand on the rationale to have the
> property "has_vcard" defined in the foaf: namespace, and the inverse
> property "belongs_to" in the vcard: one?

It was more thrown out as a topic for discussion rather than a 
well-thought out proposal, thus ending the sentence with a question 

> Seems to me that defining two inverse properties in namespaces
> managed independently is quite risky. 

It is perhaps. It was mostly that I feel it is prettier that a property 
belongs to the namespace of its domain, if there aren't good reasons to 
the contrary. Not much more to it, actually :-) 

> Why not defining the two 
> properties in the vcard space, and let FOAF folks incorporate it if
> they feel like it?

Well, the FOAF folks are here, danbri is here to voice his opinion and 
will have the final word whether this is a good idea or not, whereas 
with vCard, we're extending and reformulating somebody else's standard, 
so perhaps we should constrain ourselves to just formulate it in RDF 
and not more. 


Kjetil Kjernsmo
Programmer / Astrophysicist / Ski-orienteer / Orienteer / Mountaineer
Homepage: http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/     OpenPGP KeyID: 6A6A0BBC
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 20:14:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:54 UTC