W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Representing vCard Objects in RDF/XML

From: Matt Halstead <matt.halstead@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:03:54 +1200
Message-Id: <1f62dbca60c2049e70fd51834d696a3c@auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Ok. I understand that.  There are a few things that still confuse me. 
One simple one is the following:

In the schema there is the following declarations:

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="NPROPERTIES"/>

<rdf:Description ID="N">
   <rdf:type 
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/>
   <rdfs:label>Name</rdfs:label>
   <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#NPROPERTIES"/>
</rdf:Description>

<rdf:Description ID="Family">
   <rdf:type 
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/>
   <rdfs:label>Family Name</rdfs:label>
   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#NPROPERTIES"/>
</rdf:Description>

I am not sure why the last one isn't

<rdf:Description ID="Family">
   <rdf:type 
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/>
   <rdfs:label>Family Name</rdfs:label>
   <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#NPROPERTIES"/>            <-- changed to 
domain
</rdf:Description>

So that the type of the node that is the object of vcard:N is stated as 
the same as what is expected as the subject of the vcard:Family 
property.

an example from the spec:

<vCard:N rdf:parseType="Resource">
     <vCard:Family> Crystal </vCard:Family>
     <vCard:Given>  Corky </vCard:Given>
     <vCard:Other>  Jacky </vCard:Other>
     <vCard:Prefix> Dr </vCard:Prefix>
     <vCard:Suffix> III </vCard:Suffix>
</vCard:N>

I'm not sure how the <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#NPROPERTIES"/> in 
the original Family declaration gives a structured property sense to 
vcard:Family as suggested in section 3.4 of 
http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf

cheers
Matt


On 4/05/2005, at 8:16 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:

> Matt Halstead wrote:
>
>> The vcard rdf schema at URI http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0 is 
>> invalid.  The easiest way to look at the problems is by using the w3c 
>> validator(http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/). Is there a more recent 
>> one that should be referenced?  The errors are not that hard to fix, 
>> but I presume there needs to be some consensus on what to rename the 
>> duplicate IDs to.
>
> They don't need renaming, they can refer to the same concept (it just 
> has multiple types). The syntax can be fixed by changing the three 
> duplicated rdf:IDs in lines 115-118 to rdf:abouts but leaving the URIs 
> (and thus the RDF Model) unchanged. Also needs a default namespace 
> declaration to clean up the other errors.
>
> If the schema itself were to change then, personally, I'd prefer to 
> see a more radical clean up of the TELTYPES/ADRTYPES modeling.
>
> Dave
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 10:06:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:13 GMT