W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

Re: update on vCard edits and The Compromise

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:02:33 -0400
Message-ID: <46A89B69.4090706@ibiblio.org>
To: bnowack@appmosphere.com
Cc: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

While the OWL hack is workable, again, the goal of this is to keep vCard
as simple as possible. The only real bug in our goal is that some of the
data in VCard, such as names, is by nature ordered. While collections
are closed, I concur with Benjamin that we could use a container ) such
as rdf:Seq as used in the older VCard/RDF Spec [1]. It's currently my
preference. although sequences are not, per se, closed like a
collection, but it's close enough for me

Here's an example from [1]:

      <vCard:TITLE>         
	 <rdf:seq>
            <rdf:li> Principal Research Scientist </rdf:li>
            <rdf:li> Visiting Professor </rdf:li>
         </rdf:seq>
     </vCard:TITLE>

So I think we could s/vcard:additionalNames/vCard:TITLE in this example and we'd have a pretty good solution. Garret - do you agree?
I'd like to push out your changes to the spec right now, but want some agreement on this beforehand.

			thanks,
				harry



[1]http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf


Benjamin Nowack wrote:
> On 25.07.2007 06:43:45, Garret Wilson wrote:
>   
>> rdf:Seq is "simple", eh? ;) 
>>     
> simpler than collections, yes
>
> But is that still around? Still being 
> officially recommended?
> yes
>
>   
>> Frankly, rdf:Seq (with its rdf:_1, rdf:_2, etc.) 
>> is a worse hack that rdf:List.
>>     
> to discuss whether it's a beautiful feature will
> not be rewarding, I assume. but it it does the trick, is
> part of the spec, reasonably compact in rdf/xml, and works
> with sparql.
>
>   
>> Maybe we could create properties 
>> v:email1, v:email2, etc. Oh, wait---if we use v:preferredEmail we're 
>> essentially doing the same thing, it's just that we lose the ability to 
>> have a secondary preferred email---it's like having v:email1 without a 
>> v:email2.
>>     
> I don't see how that is less ugly than RDF's built-ins.
>
>   
>> Oh, the hacks I have to choose among! When are we just going to fix RDF? 
>> Can I fix it? Please? Please? ;)
>>     
> let's not turn this into another pointless thread..
>
>
> Benjamin
>
> --
> Benjamin Nowack
> http://bnode.org/
>
>
>   


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 13:03:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:58 UTC