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

Re: update on vCard edits and The Compromise

From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:22:17 -0400
Message-ID: <46A8A009.1010404@gmail.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
CC: bnowack@appmosphere.com, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

Harry Halpin wrote:
> 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.

I'm now totally lost.

Everyone I have talked to has discouraged use of rdf:Seq. AFAIK, you 
cannot really query it reliably with SPARQL either, though am not sure 
of that.

But also the original update simplified things by removing order from 
the modeling so in part to make it easy to convert between it and hCard.

So what are we now proposing, for what use case?

It's not clear to me how allowing order in additional names is actually 
helping us, for example. Are we also proposing it be allowed elsewhere??

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 13:22:10 UTC

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