- From: Renato Iannella <renato@iannella.it>
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:45:34 +1000
- To: James McKinney <james@opennorth.ca>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 13 Oct 2012, at 00:39, James McKinney <james@opennorth.ca> wrote: > Why create single-property classes like Email, Nickname, FormattedName, Note etc? Is it to allow users to extend those classes? Has that been identified as a real need based on feedback from the last vCard RDF? Hi James, yes, the vCard specs (all of them) allowed most properties to have additional information attached. So an Email property could have a "type" (work or home), a language, and a preference number. Hence why most "vCard properties" are owl Classes with a number of owl properties. > In any ontology, a balance must be struck between flexibility and simplicity. I'd prefer to have properties like email, nickname, formattedName, note etc that have a range of xsd:string, and to remove all the single-property classes except where there is a compelling use case for extending that class. I agree fully with the need for a balance. The current ontology tries that but is also trying to represent all the key vCard semantics for interchange opportunities. There are only a few cases of vCard properties mapping to actual owl properties (uid, birthdate, anniversary, gender) > Why does the Telephone class have both the properties "phone" and "telephone"? What's the difference? The telephone property is the uri of the number (eg tel:555-555-555) and the phone property is the uri of the "type" of telephone (eg voice, fax, etc). See the Phone Class (under Code Class). (i could not think of a better term for "phone" so happy for suggestions!) Cheers Renato Iannella
Received on Saturday, 13 October 2012 11:46:04 UTC