[Nepomuk] Modifying nco:emailAddress

[Vishesh Handa]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Christian Mollekopf
<chrigi_1 at fastmail.fm>wrote:

> On Saturday 25 May 2013 00.04:20 Vishesh Handa wrote:
> > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Christian Mollekopf
> >
> > <chrigi_1 at fastmail.fm>wrote:
> > > On Thursday 23 May 2013 19.44:04 Vishesh Handa wrote:
> > > > Hey guys
> > > >
> > > > We seem to have run into a situation where we need to fetch some
> > >
> > > identifier
> > >
> > > > of a nco:ContactMedium, and we noticed that nco:emailAddress does not
> > > > derive from nao:identifier.
> > > >
> > > > whereas nco:imID does.
> > > >
> > > > If no one object, I can add the required super property.
> > >
> > > Note that an email address is not actually a unique identifier. Many
> > > people can
> > > share email addresses (family account, company account, ...), so this
> > > breaks
> > > the "Inverse Functional" [0] property this property is supposed to have
> > > according to [1]. Maybe there are other options?
> >
> > It is still inverse functional.
> >
>
> I have confuse nco:emailAddress for nco:EmailAddress...
> nco:emailAddress is of course inverse functional for nco:EmailAddress but
> not
> for nco:Contact (which I confused with nco:ContactMedium).
>
> +1 for nao:identifier for nco:emailAddress.
>
> You can ignore the rest of the mail if everything is clear.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
>
>
> As I understand [1], inverse functional means for:
>
> <nepomuk:/resA> a nco:Contact ;
>          nco:hasEmailAddress <nepomuk:/res/email> .
>
> that whenever I see
>
> X a nco:Contact;
>          nco:hasEmailAddress <nepomuk:/res/email> .
>
> X MUST be the same as <nepomuk:/resA>.
>
> So i.e. a UID would be an inverse functional property which would qualify
> as
> nao:identifier. Also, the nco:emailAddress (the string), is an inverse
> functional property of nco:EmailAddress (the resource).
>
> > If multiple contacts want to share an email address then all of them can
> > link to the same nco:EmailAddress. I do not think we need a separate copy
> > of the nco:EmailAddress for each contact.
> >
>
> Agreed, we don't need nor want a separate copy for each contact. But the
> email
> address doesn't identify the contact.
>

Yeah. It does not.

Trueg and I had a long discussion about this. I don't like the fact that it
doesn't.


>
> > Something like this -
> >
> > <nepomuk:/resA> a nco:Contact ;
> >                            nco:hasEmailAddress <nepomuk:/res/email> .
> >
> > <nepomuk:/resB> a nco:Contact ;
> >                            nco:hasEmailAddress <nepomuk:/res/email> .
> >
> > <nepomuk:/resC> a nco:Contact ;
> >                            nco:hasEmailAddress <nepomuk:/res/email> .
> >
> >
> > <nepomuk:/res/email> a nco:EmailAddress ;
> >                            nco:emailAddress "email at email.com" .
> >
> > ---
> >
> > If the Nepomuk identification works perfectly then this is what we
> > currently have.
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Christian
> > >
> > > [0] http://www.w3.org/wiki/InverseFunctionalProperty
> > > [1] http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/nao/#mozTocId802441
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Nepomuk mailing list
> > > Nepomuk at kde.org
> > > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
>



-- 
Vishesh Handa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/nepomuk/attachments/20130525/fcdd1587/attachment.html>