- 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