W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

Re: vCard RDF compromises

From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:56:01 -0400
Message-ID: <fbb7c5df0707100756l3dd0ef71vcb12755753f57e84@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Garret Wilson" <garret@globalmentor.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org

On 7/10/07, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com> wrote:

> That's what I'm wondering. I got a few replies back in favor of my
> suggestion. No one against it. But no word on when/if there would be an
> official acceptance and/or an update of the spec. I also raised a few
> issues that need a bit more discussion, but nothing has come of it. I
> wonder whether there's enough momentum on this list to come to a
> definitive conclusion.

Hmm ... so what would it take to declare a "definitive conclusion"?

> > Also, I'm curious about if or how people would propose to reconcile
> > the new vCard representation with FOAF; particularly the personal name
> > models?
> I'd say this is a red herring. First, the FOAF name model is notoriously
> ill-defined. There have been issues regarding the FOAF name model logged
> for years, with no conclusions. The implementations in the wild are
> inconsistent. The names even have inconsistent syntax. And FOAF is dead.
> In May the spec was updated, but little changed besides the version
> number going from 0.1 to 0.9. When I saw new activity, I excitedly sent
> a message to the list regarding the vCard names we're working on. I got
> no reply, and the list has been inactive since. I don't see the value in
> bothering with it.

I've recently been corrected elsewhere on the casual use of the term
"red herring." The term means a deliberate attempt at obfuscation by
changing the subject.

My question is quite genuine. However problematic FOAF's name model
is, it's a widely deployed vocabulary, and we need to have some
reconciliation of this issue if the RDF world is going to have some
coherent story of how to represent agents.

We might well say it's not an issue for vCard, but it is an issue for
this list and this community.

> > I and a colleague are wrapping up another draft of a bibliographic
> > ontology, and am wondering about this. I prefer vCard's name model.
> Same here. It's based upon an RFC that has many, many implementations,
> which in turn in based (so claims the RFC) on an ITU recommendation.
> It's at least a place to start that's familiar, reasonably consistent,
> and somewhat complete.


Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 14:56:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:58 UTC