peter - would you share those publicly, please?
Sure, here is my cost/benefit analysis on tel as a resource:
Benefits:
-- Slightly easier data integration, e.g. using SPARQL queries. However,
how many people are doing data integration using SPARQL alone?
-- We would like to be compatible with the ontology... (or should the
ontology be changed?)
Costs:
-- Gives the illusion of a resource that you can dereference. Tom Heath
these days is on the road with an excellent Linked Data presentation
that explicitly advises against using non-http URIs.
-- There is not much anyone would ever want to say about a phone number,
which would be the most common reason for making something a resource.
-- Sites owner are expected to read an RFC on how to write down a
telephone number, and then figure out the transformation from their
internal representation to the scheme. Not likely to happen...
-- Search engines index URIs differently than literals or not at all. In
this case, this behaves as a literal in that I want it to be indexed.
Cheers,
Peter
here is a pattern following the current yahoo recommendation:
<http://www.heppnetz.de/searchmonkey/company.html#business> a
gr:BusinessEntity, commerce:Business;
rdfs:label "Hepp Space Ventures Inc."@en ;
rdfs:seeAlso <http://www.heppnetz.de/>;
vcard:adr <http://www.heppnetz.de/searchmonkey/company.html#address> ;
vcard:fn "Hepp Space Ventures Inc."@en ;
vcard:geo
[ vcard:latitude "48.0802626"^^xsd:float ;
vcard:longitude "11.6407428"^^xsd:float
] ;
vcard:tel "+49-89-6004-0"^^xsd:string ;
vcard:url <http://www.heppnetz.de/> ;
foaf:depiction <http://www.heppnetz.de/searchmonkey/logo.png> .
<http://www.heppnetz.de/searchmonkey/company.html#address> a
vcard:Address ;
vcard:country-name "Germany"@en ;
vcard:locality "Neubiberg"@en ;
vcard:postal-code "85577"^^xsd:string ;
vcard:region "Bavaria"@en ;
vcard:street-address "1234 Hepp Road"@en .
martin
Renato Iannella wrote:
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
