- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:18:19 +0100
- To: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm following some of the discussion, but not all, unfortunately :( > >> <#me> v:tel [ a v:Home ; rdf:value "123456789" ] . >> > > I would only go for this if this was as easy to write in RDFa as > > <#me> v:homeTel "123456789" . > Well, what I was proposing is that we have a "blank node" style that lets people type v:tel properties, and a shortcut property for commonly-used properties like v:homeTel. The advantages of this proposal is that: 1) It's backwards compatible with vCard 2006 2) But lets people express (and so round-trip) with actually existing vCards that are more complicated, as earlier VCard let us do. I thought we had agreement on this. While we can't make it logically equal using RDF semantics, we can make the namespace document explain very clearly's what's going on. Also, +1 on not using URIs for telephone numbers, but just plain literals. > > But I'm afraid that's not the case. > > Peter >
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 19:19:01 UTC