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

Re: vCard confusion and RDF insufficiency

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:12:06 -0400
Message-ID: <46A8C7D6.4080008@ibiblio.org>
To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

Garret Wilson wrote:

[snip]
> The problems were having with single/multiple cardinality and order;
> and representing literals in a list; are nothing new---they are
> problems inherent in RDF. They rear their heads in very, very, simple
> ontologies. And they aren't going away. That worries me greatly.

I have yet to see anything resembling a substantial objection to using
rdf:Seq rather than rdf:List. Does *anyone* object to rdf:Seq, which
seems to be able to take literals as objects with an ordering constraint?

The only objection would be the lack of closure of containers and lack
of formal semantics or ordering, but given that you cannot reasonably
put literals in rdf:List, I see no option other than use rdf:Seq.

To me, the only question is:

1) Should we *force* users to use rdf:Seq (i.e. make it range constraint
of v:additionalNames) when describing additional names,

 2) Leave the range constraint out and so allow users have "unordered"
additional names (and the same question for honorable prefixes and
suffixes, which I imagine may have ordering constraints in some
languages, and some order for them seems to be implied by the vCard
RFC), but remind the users in the spec that for this property if
ordering is needed, one *should* use rdf:Seq.

I am leaning towards 2), since I am in general always leaning on letting
users use complex things (such as rdf:Seq) as optional.
>
> Garret
>


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:12:24 UTC

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