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

Re: [Aperture-devel] vCard Meeting 7/18 - 2 ET?

From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:39:50 -0400
Message-Id: <ac57f3b7f74363674a53261fe02e4943@gmail.com>
Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Dmitry Ulanov <dulanov@gmail.com>, Aperture Developers <aperture-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, semantic-web@w3.org, Antoni Mylka <antoni.mylka@gmail.com>, Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>

Actually, I have a comment, which may well have bearing on the other 
vcard work.

This:

> The family name of an Object represented by this Contact. These 
> applies to people that have more than one given name. The 'first' one 
> is considered 'the' given name (see nameGiven) property. All 
> additional ones are considered 'additional' names. The name inherited 
> from parents is the 'family name'. e.g. For Dr. John Phil Paul 
> Stevenson Jr. M.D. A.C.P. we have contact with: honorificPrefix: 
> 'Dr.', nameGiven: 'John', nameAdditional: 'Phil', nameAdditional: 
> 'Paul', nameFamily: 'Stevenson', honorificSuffix: 'Jr.', 
> honorificSuffix: 'M.D.', honorificSuffix: 'A.C.P.'. These properties 
> form an equivalent of the compound 'N' property as defined in RFC 2426 
> Sec. 3.1.2

... I think is poorly defined. It breaks even for simple Western names 
like "J. Edgar Hoover." I'd call "J. Edgar" the given name.

Assuming a "first" name has any fundamental meaning is problematic, 
particularly in cultures where the first name is in fact the family 
name ;-)

Also, I think the additional names in the examples above are in fact 
ordered.

Bruce
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 18:39:50 UTC

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