- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:22:00 -0400
- To: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 31 Oct 2009, at 16:14, Axel Polleres wrote: > small thing which we may want to add to the errata: > The pedantic-web folks [1] pointed me to some errors in: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0# > > which is not adhering to linked data principles, see [2] for details. > > I'd prefer to fix such issues in the upcoming version, i.e. not > dereferencing example > vocabularies/namespaces that have broken RDF from W3C specs. > Ideally, we can resolve > that by fixing http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0# > which -- as [2] suggests -- doesn't seem to be trivial, since we > aren't sure who can > actually fix it. otherwise, we may just want to change the example > to something else than vcard? There is actually an updated version of vCard in RDF at [1], which is syntactically valid. Its namespace is: http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns# I think some concepts in there are named differently from the 2001 version, so the examples should be double-checked, but updating to this newer version is all you'd need to make pedantic-web happy. Richard [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns > > best, > Axel > > > 1. http://pedantic-web.org/ > 2. http://groups.google.com/group/pedantic-web/browse_thread/thread/229de280636a7614
Received on Saturday, 31 October 2009 20:22:37 UTC