W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2007

Re: vCard/iCalendar RDF process document 2007-04-06

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:57:54 +0200
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-id: <200705012057.55958.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>

On Tuesday 01 May 2007, you wrote:
> Hmmm... I think by "understand" you mean "know the equivalent
> syntax", not "understand the semantics". 

You were the first to use the word "understand" in this context. :-)

But I think I mean both.

> 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.

OK!

> (But are you 
> going to have a different subset for converting to/from vCard/RDF?)

No, that will not be required if there exists a full vCard ontology in 
RDF.

> But I think it's dangerous.

Why?

> >  
> > ...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.

Hehe, well, I don't see that as evil, if perhaps a little excessive in 
that example. 

I see it more like the division of OWL into OWL DL and OWL Lite (OWL 
Full vs OWL DL is another story), SVG into SVG Tiny, etc, and many 
similar specs. There is a lot of precedence in doing it this way.

Kjetil
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 18:58:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:00 UTC