- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:36:06 -0300
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: > Sure, but to non-RDFers, especially hcard users, it is useful to know > what you need to understand to have a sufficient implementation to do a > round-trip with hcard. > Hmmm... I think by "understand" you mean "know the equivalent syntax", not "understand the semantics". Yes, as far as conversion goes, I probably don't care if you create some named subset for which support is required when converting to/from hcard/RDF. (But are you going to have a different subset for converting to/from vCard/RDF?) But I think it's dangerous. > > ...and as long as the subsets of > the core and full are disjoint but the union of them makes up the whole > vCard, there is no variations to talk about -- there are just two > namespace URIs instead of one, that's all. > Wait... multiple namespaces! No! That's like having two math ontologies: operatorPlus in the example:easy/math/concepts# namespace, and operatorDerivative in the example:difficult/math/your/processor/probably/can't/handle# namespace. :) I think it's an abuse of the namespace concept. Garret
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 18:36:39 UTC