- From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:22:17 -0400
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- CC: bnowack@appmosphere.com, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Harry Halpin wrote: > While the OWL hack is workable, again, the goal of this is to keep vCard > as simple as possible. The only real bug in our goal is that some of the > data in VCard, such as names, is by nature ordered. While collections > are closed, I concur with Benjamin that we could use a container ) such > as rdf:Seq as used in the older VCard/RDF Spec [1]. It's currently my > preference. although sequences are not, per se, closed like a > collection, but it's close enough for me > > Here's an example from [1]: > > <vCard:TITLE> > <rdf:seq> > <rdf:li> Principal Research Scientist </rdf:li> > <rdf:li> Visiting Professor </rdf:li> > </rdf:seq> > </vCard:TITLE> > > So I think we could s/vcard:additionalNames/vCard:TITLE in this example and we'd have a pretty good solution. Garret - do you agree? > I'd like to push out your changes to the spec right now, but want some agreement on this beforehand. I'm now totally lost. Everyone I have talked to has discouraged use of rdf:Seq. AFAIK, you cannot really query it reliably with SPARQL either, though am not sure of that. But also the original update simplified things by removing order from the modeling so in part to make it easy to convert between it and hCard. So what are we now proposing, for what use case? It's not clear to me how allowing order in additional names is actually helping us, for example. Are we also proposing it be allowed elsewhere?? Bruce
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 13:22:10 UTC