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

Re: Four Questions to Resolve VCard Issue on Ordering/Unordering

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:25:57 +0200
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PM-GA.20070727112557.EEB8B.1.1D@mailout.appmosphere.com>

On 26.07.2007 15:21:24, Harry Halpin wrote:
>1a) The Range of AdditionalNames is rdf:List.
no, as it doesn't really work with sparql

>1b) The Range of AdditionalNames is rdf:Seq
yes, as it facilitates sparqling and directly supports literals

>2) One could have in addition to an ordered additionalNames, one could have an
>unordered vCard:additionalName that allowed both ordered and unordered without
>value-switching. 
hmm, not sure. if it's for a few props only, maybe.

>3) We just take away any range constraint on vCard:additionalNames, so one can
>do both ordering and unordering with a single property, but with:
no, that'd be as painful as other hybrid datatype/object properties

>4) Should we extend the compromise (between 1,2, and 3) to
>vcard:honorable-prefix and vcard:honorable-suffix.
not sure, I guess I'd vote for a simple single-valued prop in these
cases, but haven't really thought about it.

>as soon as I get
>something resembling consensus (by end of the day hopefully, since this is
>such an active topic), I will hit republish button on the spec. 
That'd be awesome! In general, I'm fine with any solution, if we only
get it fixed. My votes above are preferences, not requirements.

Cheers,
Benjamin

--
Benjamin Nowack
http://bnode.org/
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 09:26:18 UTC

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