- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:53:17 -0400
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com> writes: > one v:familyName, and an rdf:List of v:additionalNames. (Constraints on > the number of v:honorificPrefix and v:honorificSuffix will be dropped.) > And therein lies the rub that I consistently forget: because additional > names will be literals, the rdf:List of v:additionalNames will have to > contain bnodes, each with an rdf:value containing the actual additional > name. (The same goes for v:extendedAddress.) Damn RDF! When can RDF just > go ahead and say that an rdf:List can hold literals? This irritates me > to no end. Me, too. :-( To be clear, an rdf:List can have literals, it's just that parseType=Collection cannot be used with such lists. I'm curious why you prefer rdf:value for this workaround instead of owl:sameAs.... -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 03:54:42 UTC