- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:58:02 +0100
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: 'Semantic Web' <semantic-web@w3.org>, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
On 5 Feb 2007, at 19:45, Harry Halpin wrote: > If we have > cardinality constraints they allow us "round-tripping" without loss of > data Cardinality constraints in the vocab file won't stop people from publishing inconsistent data, and doing some sanity checking in the RDF->vCard converter code is easy enough. My vote is for RDFS. Richard > , but if don't have them them people can have much more flexible > names and organizations and the like, and keep vCard in RDF/S as > opposed > to OWL. > > I can see arguments either way so that's why I'm throwing it to the > list. > > "Cards": > A v:VCard can have at most 1 v:rev property. > > "Names": > A v:Name can have at most 1 v:family-name property. > > A v:Name can have at most 1 v:given-name property. > > A v:Name can have at most 1 v:additional-name property. > > A v:Name can have at most 1 v:honorific-prefix property. > > "Addresses": > > A v:Address can have at most 1 v:post-office-box property. > > A v:Address can have at most 1 v:extended-address property. > > A v:Address can have at most 1 v:street-address property. > > A v:Address can have at most 1 v:locality property. > > A v:Address can have at most 1 v:region property. > > A v:Address can have at most 1 v:postal-code property. > > A v:Address can have at most 1 v:country-name property. > > A v:Name can have at most 1 v:honorific-suffix property. > > "Organizations:" > A v:Organization can have at most 1 v:organization-name > property. > > A v:Organization can have at most 1 v:organization-unit > property. > > "Locations" > A v:Location can have at most 1 v:latitude property. > > A v:Location can have at most 1 v:longitude property. > > [1]http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns > [2]http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf > > > Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> >> Question to all ... >> >> On 5 Feb 2007, at 07:46, Harry Halpin wrote: >>> What do people think? Keep it in OWL? Are all the cardinality >>> constraints Norm has right? >>> >>> Or move it to RDF and throw cardinality constraints out the window? >> >> Well, the case for staying with RDF/S is pretty clear -- keep it >> simple. >> >> What's the case for going OWL? What compelling features could we >> build >> into applications that would be impossible or much harder if there >> are >> no OWL cardinality constraints in the vCard vocabulary? >> >> Cheers >> Richard >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- -harry >>> >>> Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh >>> http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426 >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > -harry > > Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh > http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426 > >
Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 20:58:34 UTC