- From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:24:41 +0200
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- 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>
Hi Harry, Agreed and agreed! Sorry for not having followed the discussion. Peter Harry Halpin wrote: > 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 19:27:28 UTC