- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:09:28 +0200
- To: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On 19/5/09 07:08, Renato Iannella wrote: > > On 18 May 2009, at 21:28, Harry Halpin wrote: > >> What I would like to see: A simple version that would be similar to >> Norm's work that would be easier to SPARQL, and a "complex" version >> based on Renato's work that let one use the various RDF containers, >> with Renato, Norm, and myself editing, and a standardized mapping or >> even merger with FOAF. > > > I think FOAF (2.0) should (re)use vCard RDF. > > If it can't, then we have a serious problem of reusing ontologies.... My intention is to add things to the FOAF namespace that cover most of the addressbooky content of Portable Contacts. If there's a nice modelling idiom from the vcard RDF discussions, happy to shadow that too. But I don't want people to have to use two vocabs for saying pretty basic things. If you want an exact 1:1 representation of vCard, then the vcard-in-rdf docs are your best bet. If you want any of the semi-random mischief in the FOAF spec, you should also be able to mention an address without needing a 2nd namespace... Dan
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 09:10:07 UTC