Re: [vcard] Notes and questions from VCard/RDF #swig and F2C Meeting: Friday Jan 26th 12:00ET

Harry Halpin wrote:
> Everyone,
> 
>     While there was unfortunately no official scribe, I did manage to
> take some notes of what the general feeling of the meeting was. Aside
> from what is obvious from the #swig archive [1] is that there was two
> general points being made.
> 
> 1) The first was brought up by Kjetil Kjernsmo, also representing
> concerns from Phil Archer regarding using vCard in the Web Content WG
> over the use of the "nick" property. Currently the "v:nickname" property
> has a VCard class domain, which they believe won't work since they need
> a "shortname" to represent not only people but organizations such as
> "I.B.M." who may want to label contet.

I should jump in here and apologise for not actually being present at 
the meeting (in my defence, m'lud, I was receiving some very welcome 
information from Fabien and Kjetil brought up the issue perfectly.

We need a shortname property of some kind so we can refer to W3C cf. 
World Wide Web Consortium. If foaf:nick has this semantic, OK, we can 
use it, if not, then yes, we need to define it somehow. There are near 
synonyms we could use - "shortname", "colloquial", "acronym", 
"displayname", 
"is_that_the_full_name?_I_never_knew,_I_always_just_use_the_short_name"

Cheers

Phil.



> 
> 2) TimBL brought up a generalization of the point: He would like the
> domain of all vCard information that is about either people or
> organizations, such as "v:fn" or "v:bday", to have a domain not as
> v:VCard but of something more like foaf:Agent. Otherwise, it appears
> that "the card has a full name" or "the card itself has a birthday",
> which seems wrong. While the card clearly does have properties like
> time-stamped revisions (v:rev), it would be a mess to conflate that type
> of information with information about the "thing the card is about." In
> other words, the card is a type of indirection that holds information
> about some other thing, and so the domain of this indirect information
> should *not* be v:vCard.
> 
> 3) Lastly, we had a very long and not so productive conversation about
> naming ordering, in particular honorific-prefixes and suffixes, and
> simply surrendered on any sane way to keep this internationalizable
> beside just encouraging people to use just v:fn and v:sort-string and
> not to use prfefies and suffices, alothough they should be modelled for
> sake of "round-tripping" between hCard and vcard ontologies.
> 
>     I'll try to add these into the note as soon as I get my head a bit
> further around DocBook...
> 
>              -harry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2007-01-26.html
> Norman Walsh wrote:
>> / Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> was heard to say:
>> | 	There will another IRC #swig meeting to discuss vCard in RDF, this time
>>
>> I wasn't able to attend, but I have now read the chatlog. It was a bit
>> hard to follow without the audio :-)
>>
>> If the participants approved explicit changes to the vCard ontology, I
>> didn't successfully glean them from the record. Please let me know if I
>> overlooked them.
>>
>>                                         Be seeing you,
>>                                           norm
>>
>>   
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 11:28:36 UTC