W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2009

Re: vCard RDF merge....

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:23:13 +0100
To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>, www-archive@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1253182993.20274.33.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 10:36 +0200, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
> I don't know whether I am in the Linked Data scene ;-), but I am
> convinced that bNodes can be useful.

As far as I'm concerned a bNode is just a resource that nobody's
bothered to give a URI... yet.

I don't think that the vCard vocab should be *insisting* that these are
bNodes rather than URIs. e.g. the following should be essentially the
same as far as vCard vocab consumers are concerned:

	<#me> v:tel [ a v:Home ; rdf:value "123456789" ] .

and:

	<#me> v:tel <#homePhone> .
	<#homePhone> a v:Home ; rdf:value "123456789" .

Indeed, it annoys me that [...] in SPARQL doesn't match nodes which have
URIs. It's unintuitive.

I'm CCing public-rdf-dawg-comments.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 10:24:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:26 GMT