Garret Wilson wrote: > Ivan Herman wrote: >> >> >> O.k. thanks, I understand. And with that made clear I respectfully >> disagree:-) Any work on RDF 2.0, as you call it, is bound to be >> non-that-easy and, consequently, longer. I would _not_ want to see the >> RDF vCard effort to advance in parallel with a new version of RDF. I am >> not saying such an RDF 2.0 work might not come at some point in the >> future, but I would definitely prefer to decouple vCard from it... >> > > Um, I think we're saying the same thing. By "parallel" I meant that we > shouldn't hold up vCard for anything. I was responding to criticism by > Benjamin that my complaining about RDF was somehow getting in the way of > RDF vCard development. I think that our uses of "parallel" and > "decoupled" are synonymous. > > Ah! O.k. Maybe we should have an RDF vocabulary to define exactly what we mean by parallel:-) I am glad this is out of the way! Cheers Ivan >> B.t.w., I did not see anything in the discussions on vCard until now >> that would warrant any change on the RDF model... >> > > Well, if I could get something in RDF 2.0 that would make it easier for > values to be single or ordered, that would solve a whole lot of > problems. This problem is certainly present in vCard RDF development, > but I haven't advanced any solution for RDF 2.0 > > You're right---the other problem we're having in vCard (literals in > lists) is purely an RDF/XML serialization problem. > > Garret -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:22:50 GMT