- From: Matt Halstead <matt.halstead@auckland.ac.nz>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:03:54 +1200
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Ok. I understand that. There are a few things that still confuse me. One simple one is the following: In the schema there is the following declarations: <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="NPROPERTIES"/> <rdf:Description ID="N"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/> <rdfs:label>Name</rdfs:label> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#NPROPERTIES"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description ID="Family"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/> <rdfs:label>Family Name</rdfs:label> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#NPROPERTIES"/> </rdf:Description> I am not sure why the last one isn't <rdf:Description ID="Family"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/> <rdfs:label>Family Name</rdfs:label> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#NPROPERTIES"/> <-- changed to domain </rdf:Description> So that the type of the node that is the object of vcard:N is stated as the same as what is expected as the subject of the vcard:Family property. an example from the spec: <vCard:N rdf:parseType="Resource"> <vCard:Family> Crystal </vCard:Family> <vCard:Given> Corky </vCard:Given> <vCard:Other> Jacky </vCard:Other> <vCard:Prefix> Dr </vCard:Prefix> <vCard:Suffix> III </vCard:Suffix> </vCard:N> I'm not sure how the <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#NPROPERTIES"/> in the original Family declaration gives a structured property sense to vcard:Family as suggested in section 3.4 of http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf cheers Matt On 4/05/2005, at 8:16 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote: > Matt Halstead wrote: > >> The vcard rdf schema at URI http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0 is >> invalid. The easiest way to look at the problems is by using the w3c >> validator(http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/). Is there a more recent >> one that should be referenced? The errors are not that hard to fix, >> but I presume there needs to be some consensus on what to rename the >> duplicate IDs to. > > They don't need renaming, they can refer to the same concept (it just > has multiple types). The syntax can be fixed by changing the three > duplicated rdf:IDs in lines 115-118 to rdf:abouts but leaving the URIs > (and thus the RDF Model) unchanged. Also needs a default namespace > declaration to clean up the other errors. > > If the schema itself were to change then, personally, I'd prefer to > see a more radical clean up of the TELTYPES/ADRTYPES modeling. > > Dave
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 10:06:46 UTC