- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:03:18 +0200
- To: "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Garret Wilson" <garret@globalmentor.com>, andy.seaborne@hp.com, bnowack@appmosphere.com, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 31/07/07, Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>
> > Sorry, did I miss something here?
Clearly I did (that'll teach me not to skip early parts of a thread),
thanks Bruce...
> The issue is whether to do:
>
> vcard:givenName "Danny J."
>
> ... or:
>
> vcard:givenName "Danny J."
> vcard:givenName "J."
>
> ... or:
>
> vcard:givenName ( "Danny" "J.")
>
> The family, given, additional properties are for pieces of full names.
Ok, I see from
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2426#section-3.1.2
it's a structured value, which it appears Norm reflected:
Name
given-name
family-name
additional-name
> Norm restricted cardinality to 1 on these,
How so?
and so chose the first
> approach. I strongly supported this move.
Assuming the cardinality was restricted to 1, it wouldn't be possible
to represent all vCards using this vocab since RFC2426 says: "Each
component can have multiple values."
> Two doesn't work.
Name
given-name
family-name
additional-name
additional-name
...
I don't see why not, the Name node is acting as a quasi-container.
> Garret wants to allow something like the third approach.
This seems unnecessary, multiple values are possible without there
being a container or collection.
> This discussion is all about resolving this question.
I'd be tempted to make vCard/RDF follow vCard closely and use other
vocabs/structures where the modelling doesn't seem right.
But anyhow I'd better duck out - I still can't face reading the dozens
of earlier posts...
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 15:03:30 UTC