- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:07:56 -0300
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- CC: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>, Antoni Mylka <antoni.mylka@gmail.com>, ishida@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4634FB1C.9080808@globalmentor.com>
Harry,
Harry Halpin wrote:
> Garret - any updates?
>
I'm attaching version 2007-04-29 of my process document, which switches
back to the W3C namespaces and adds RDF equivalents for value types and
structured values. Things to note:
* The more controversial structured value types are now included,
including vcard:N and vcard:Adr. The controversial
"value-flipping" is included---hopefully there will be enough
debate to allow us to converge on a good decision in this area.
* Certain iCalendar value types such as PERIOD and RECUR are modeled
as structured values (and therefore as RDF classes).
* The lexical form of UTC-OFFSET is inconsistent between vCard and
iCalendar; the vCard form, which closely follows xsd:dateTime, was
chosen.
* Certain decisions are still TBD, such as the proper ontology into
which to place directory:geo.
> I'd be willing facilitate a #swig discussion if people can pick a time
> where we can discuss all the different concepts.
>
That would be great, but I think for such a discussion to be most
productive we should first at least lay out the issues to be discussed
on this list.
> Again, I think the goals should be maximum simplicity with the ability
> to, if needed, round-trip.
I'm not sure I agree with "maximum" as a modifier, as that would
probably entail simply taking some vCard values verbatim. (e.g. I don't
want <vcard:n>Stevenson;John;Philip,Paul;Dr.;Jr.,M.D.,A.C.P.</vcard:n>,
even though one could argue that this is the "maximum simplicity with
the ability to ... round-trip.")
> I also think we should involve the W3C
> Internationalization effort in order to make sure whatever new VCard RDF
> comes is properly international.
>
I definitely agree, although I wouldn't want to slow down this effort
too much with such inter-group involvement. My reasoning here is that
we're not creating an entirely new domain model---we're only creating a
new mapping to existing data. I'm afraid if we waited for i18n support
for things like iCalendar RECUR, for example, that this effort would be
delayed for a very long time. I'd prefer first to create a canonical
mapping for the existing vCard/iCalendar model, and then add appropriate
i18n support (e.g. lunar calendars).
Garret
Attachments
- text/html attachment: directoryprocess.html
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 20:08:52 UTC