Hi Harry,
Agreed and agreed!
Sorry for not having followed the discussion.
Peter
Harry Halpin wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Peter Mika <pm...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I'm following some of the discussion, but not all, unfortunately :(
<#me> v:tel [ a v:Home ; rdf:value "123456789" ] .
I would only go for this if this was as easy to write in RDFa as
<#me> v:homeTel "123456789" .
Well, what I was proposing is that we have a "blank node" style that
lets people type v:tel properties, and a shortcut property for
commonly-used properties like v:homeTel. The advantages of this
proposal is that:
1) It's backwards compatible with vCard 2006
2) But lets people express (and so round-trip) with actually existing
vCards that are more complicated, as earlier VCard let us do.
I thought we had agreement on this. While we can't make it logically
equal using RDF semantics, we can make the namespace document explain
very clearly's what's going on.
Also, +1 on not using URIs for telephone numbers, but just plain literals.
But I'm afraid that's not the case.
Peter
