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