W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [vcard] OWL or RDF for vCard?

From: Andreas Langegger <andreas.langegger@gmx.at>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:06:58 +0100
Message-ID: <45C84532.8020101@gmx.at>
To: semantic-web@w3.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Why not create two ontologies, with the second one (with cardinality
> constraints) further constraining the first one (those without)?  So,
> when people use the vCard, they can use the rdfs:isDefinedBy to suggest
> to an RDF engine if additional constraints should be retrieved or not?
> 
> I am a firm believer of ontology modularization.  I think we should
> avoid build large monolithic ontology at all cost. We should build
> ontologies on small scales.  Doing so will help users to pick and mix
> also it will help ontology's graceful evolution.
> Xiaoshu
> 

I'm voting for simplicity and RDF. Two variantes is bad, owl vcards
would then not be downwards compatible...

and people will do things wrong anyway, OWL is no nostrum ;-)

/Andy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFyEUyKk9SuaNc5+IRAiKsAKCC1l/jm4VEbfQLpZcfdAFVVnsqRwCfQ2Az
IRXO8rTzHqDcmA/QIycLiH0=
=KU+a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 13:07:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:20 UTC