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

Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> No, that will not be required if there exists a full vCard ontology in 
> RDF.
>
>   
>> But I think it's dangerous.
>>     
>
> Why?
>   

...because we might as well rename that section of the specification, 
"Information you are allowed to throw away." :)

But ignoring the multiple namespace issue (below), this isn't a big 
sticking point to me. As long we don't encumber processors (like mine) 
that want to handle all the data appropriately.

>   
>>>  
>>> ...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.
>   

I'm not sure if I agree with the precedent. But besides, these are 
totally different types of subsets. We're not talking about 
understanding and doing something with all the information, which is 
what OWL/OWL Lite and SVG/SVG Tiny does. That is, it would be analogous 
if we said, "vCard RDF processors must be able correctly to determine 
which telephone number to use when asked; vCard RDF Lite processors need 
only be able to send email to the correct address." We're talking about 
hcard/vCard/RDF conversion here. OWL/OWL Lite is not about converting 
other semantic metadata frameworks to/from OWL, and SVG/SVG Tiny is not 
about converting other vector formats to/from SVG. They are about 
following the instructions inherent in OWL/SVG. (This is why I made the 
semantic understanding vs. syntactic understanding distinction above.)

But again, I don't really care if you dice up vCard RDF as many ways as 
you want---I just don't think giving each subset a separate namespace 
URI is a good idea.

Garret

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 19:32:30 UTC