Re: vCard confusion and RDF insufficiency

Garret Wilson wrote:
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>>
>> O.k. thanks, I understand. And with that made clear I respectfully
>> disagree:-) Any work on RDF 2.0, as you call it, is bound to be
>> non-that-easy and, consequently, longer. I would _not_ want to see the
>> RDF vCard effort to advance in parallel with a new version of RDF. I am
>> not saying such an RDF 2.0 work might not come at some point in the
>> future, but I would definitely prefer to decouple vCard from it...
>>   
> 
> Um, I think we're saying the same thing. By "parallel" I meant that we
> shouldn't hold up vCard for anything. I was responding to criticism by
> Benjamin that my complaining about RDF was somehow getting in the way of
> RDF vCard development. I think that our uses of "parallel" and
> "decoupled" are synonymous.
> 
> 

Ah! O.k. Maybe we should have an RDF vocabulary to define exactly what
we mean by parallel:-)

I am glad this is out of the way!

Cheers

Ivan


>> B.t.w., I did not see anything in the discussions on vCard until now
>> that would warrant any change on the RDF model...
>>   
> 
> Well, if I could get something in RDF 2.0 that would make it easier for
> values to be single or ordered, that would solve a whole lot of
> problems. This problem is certainly present in vCard RDF development,
> but I haven't advanced any solution for RDF 2.0
> 
> You're right---the other problem we're having in vCard (literals in
> lists) is purely an RDF/XML serialization problem.
> 
> Garret

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf