- From: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:22:42 +1000
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>, <www-archive@w3.org>, "Martin Hepp (UniBW)" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Hi all......I want to complete the vCard/RDF update soon... So the question remains....are we happy to use the rdf:value+type model (which is what the 2001 note uses)? If so, does this mean that we remove the homeTel Property (etc) from the ontology? Renato On 30 Jun 2009, at 19:17, Toby Inkster wrote: > Instead of: > > _:me a v:VCard ; > v:fn "Alice Smith" ; > v:workTel <tel:+44-7700-900123> ; > v:mobileTel <tel:+44-7700-900123> . > > It uses: > > _:me a v:VCard ; > v:fn "Alice Smith" ; > v:tel [ > a vx:Tel ; > rdf:value <tel:+44-7700-900123> ; > vx:usage "work" , "mobile" > ] . > > My primary motivation was to be able to represent the data in the > hCard > microformat in a way more closely related to the type+value > structure of > hCard communications devices. > > It's not perfect (it breaks the "range" of the 2006 v:tel, v:email and > v:label properties; and vx:usage should probably take a non-literal > value) but perhaps some of the ideas there could be incorporated into > the merged RDF vCard. In particular it should address all of the > points > above. Cheers... Renato Iannella NICTA
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 05:27:24 UTC