- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:53:17 -0400
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com> writes:
> one v:familyName, and an rdf:List of v:additionalNames. (Constraints on
> the number of v:honorificPrefix and v:honorificSuffix will be dropped.)
> And therein lies the rub that I consistently forget: because additional
> names will be literals, the rdf:List of v:additionalNames will have to
> contain bnodes, each with an rdf:value containing the actual additional
> name. (The same goes for v:extendedAddress.) Damn RDF! When can RDF just
> go ahead and say that an rdf:List can hold literals? This irritates me
> to no end.
Me, too. :-(
To be clear, an rdf:List can have literals, it's just that
parseType=Collection cannot be used with such lists.
I'm curious why you prefer rdf:value for this workaround instead of
owl:sameAs....
-- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 03:54:42 UTC