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

Re: vCard confusion and RDF insufficiency

From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:13:54 -0700
Message-ID: <46A8E462.2020201@globalmentor.com>
To: bnowack@appmosphere.com
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

Benjamin Nowack wrote:
> On 26.07.2007 10:04:46, Garret Wilson wrote:
>   
>> * Benjamin: "Yes, that's a general suggestion, which usually coves both 
>> collections and containers, as they introduce intermediate nodes." 
>> (semantic-web@w3.org 2007-07-26)
>>     
> please, don't cite me out of context. *If* you don't need ordering,
> stay away from unnecessarily complex constructs. You asked for a
> way to model sorted lists. rdf:Seq is one you could use.
>   

Well, even out of context it's clear you were saying that both 
collections and containers have counts against them, which I failed to 
see when I first posted the quote. Sorry about that---now that I read it 
again it's clear you weren't saying that rdf:Seq was worse than rdf:List.

>
>> It seems fundamentally wrong to me to allow a particular serialization 
>> format of a general model to dictate the construction of an ontology.
>>     
> Noone forces you to use RDF.

Just as I understood your statement better (above) after reading it 
again, I would encourage you to read my statement again---you're 
reacting against something I didn't say. In this particular sentence, I 
was saying that a particular serialization of RDF shouldn't drive the 
creation of an RDF ontology. Let me say it again being more explicit:

"It seems fundamentally wrong to me to allow a particular serialization 
format [RDF+XML] of a general model [RDF] to dictate the construction of 
an ontology [vCard]."

Although I do have problems with RDF in general, in this instance I was 
saying that it seems wrong to abandon RDF lists containing literals just 
because RDF+XML doesn't have a compact way of representing literals in 
lists, when RDF (apart from a particular serialization) does that with 
no problem.

Just wanted to clear that up. And thanks for pointing out where I 
misread your quote above.

> And as Sandro mentioned already,
> feel free to propose RDF 2.0,

Thanks for the encouragement!

>  but that's probably not the best approach
> to getting that rdf/vcard spec done this decade ;)
>   

Let me stress that I would like the RDF 2.0 effort and the RDF vCard 
effort to advance in parallel, so that RDF 2.0 in no way holds up RDF 
vCard. I've already provided Harry with a new RDF vCard update, which I 
hope to see publicly soon.

Best,

Garret
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 18:14:00 UTC

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