- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:15:54 +0100
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: 'Semantic Web' <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Monday 05 February 2007 07:46, Harry Halpin wrote: > Currently one distinguishing characteristic between the earlier vCard > note [1] and the new work in progress [2] is that the earlier one is > in vanilla RDF while the latter is in OWL. I think you forgot the URLs for those references :-) > What do people think? Keep it in OWL? Would users have to relate to OWL in any way? Wouldn't the OWL use be rather hidden in the ontology? As long as the users for the most part will only have to relate to the classes and properties they are used to from hcard, then I don't see anything wrong with a few additional OWL triples. If, OTOH, they would have to seek understanding of OWL to use the vCard ontology, then it seems rather evil, yes... Cheers, Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo Programmer / Astrophysicist / Ski-orienteer / Orienteer / Mountaineer kjetil@kjernsmo.net Homepage: http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/ OpenPGP KeyID: 6A6A0BBC
Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 07:20:23 UTC