- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:58:06 +0100
- To: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, "Martin Hepp (UniBW)" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Renato - I've been pretty busy recently - but am willing to give a merger a sort sometime next week. How does next week look for you? On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Renato Iannella<renato@nicta.com.au> wrote: > Does anyone have any more views on the current situation? > > I don't want to delay any current work progress.....and if the answer is, > let them just use the Ontology, then lets... > > (I also plan to look at vCard 4.0 to do an closer RDF mapping to it....but > that is later work...) > > Renato > > > On 7 Aug 2009, at 22:24, Renato Iannella wrote: > >> >> Martin, I started to put the two together: >> >> http://spin.nicta.org.au/vcardrdf/vcard-rdf-2009.html >> >> That's when I send the email asking some questions: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0146.html >> >> I'm really stuck on the structure for multiple property values which vCard >> supports. >> Which is what is in the NOTE, but not in the Ontology, and mentioned here: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0147.html >> >> I suppose if you are after just the ontology - and not a "faithful" >> mapping of the vCard semantics - then it would be easiest to just use the >> current ontology: >> >> http://developer.yahoo.com/searchmonkey/smguide/vcard-details.html >> >> >> Cheers... Renato Iannella >> NICTA >> > > Cheers... Renato Iannella > NICTA > >
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 23:58:48 UTC