- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 13:59:46 -0300
- To: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
- CC: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>, semantic-web@w3.org
Bruce, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > This goes to that question of complexity that I and Harry were > mentioning. I strongly support Norm's original decision that the name > properties (among them not firstName, BTW) (Oops---sorry, I meant vcard:givenName.) > ought to be literal properties restricted to a maximum cardinality of 1. To understand the implications of your and Norm's position, let me ask a few followup questions: 1. Do you believe that multiple honorific suffixes should be placed into one literal value, such as <vcard:honorificSuffix>BS,JD,MBA,JR"</vcard:honorificSuffix>? 2. Which of the following representations do you prefer: <vcard:familyName>bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden</vcard:familyName> or <vcard:familyName>bin Muhammad,bin 'Awad,bin Laden</vcard:familyName> (i.e. the family name components separated by some delimiter)? 3. Do you believe that vcard:adr should also have a maximum cardinality of 1, considering the need to support multiple addresses with a "preferred address" designation? 4. Do you believe that vcard:tel should also have a maximum cardinality of 1, considering the need to support multiple telephone numbers with a "preferred telephone number" designation? 5. Do you believe that vcard:email should also have a maximum cardinality of 1, considering the need to support multiple email addresses with a "preferred email address" designation? 6. Would you support abandoning the class vcard:N in favor of simply using the property vcard:n in the form <vcard:n>Stevenson;John;Philip,Paul;Dr.;Jr.,M.D.,A.C.P.</vcard:n>? If no, then why not? (i.e. I'm curious to know whether your answers to #1 and #6 are different, as the questions are very similar.) Thanks, Garret
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 17:00:11 UTC