W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

Re: vCard - Old vs. New?

From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 13:43:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4A0177E6.5040101@yahoo-inc.com>
To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
CC: semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>, public-lod@w3.org, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Hi Martin,

This issue came up at VoCamp in Galway, and we decided to settle it in 
general by trying to agree on the mappings of microformats to RDF:

http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Microformats_in_RDF

At least Sindice and our crawler support now the same mappings for the 
majority of microformats.

For the specific case of VCard:

http://semanticweb.org/wiki/HCard

We agreed that the proposal for Representing VCard in RDF 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf> by Renato Iannella is NOW DEPRECATED. 
The canonical representation of VCard in RDF 
<http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#> is also hosted at W3C and maintained 
by Harry Halpin and Norm Walsh.

Unfortunately, W3C still has to take the actual step of deprecating (or 
even better, moving to archive) the old note.

And again unfortunately, it's the state of the art in the Semantic Web 
that people use vocabularies that rank highest in their favorite search 
engine. Everything at W3C, no matter how outdated, comes up high ;)

Best,
Peter




Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
> Dear all:
>
> As far as I can see, there are now two vCard variants in use - the 
> original
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#
>
> and the new one
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#
>
> Now - which one should data providers and application developers use? 
> I see the technical advantages of the new variant and the deficiencies 
> of the old approach. However, a quick SWOOGLE statistics shows that 
> there are only 470 RDF documents using the new version vs. 233,595 
> documents using the old version.
>
> How do current Semantic Web applications handle this issue? Do they 
> honor data expressed in either variant?
> I see that Yahoo Searchmonkey, for instance, endorses the new 
> namespace - what's with others?
>
> We should not irritate potential users of Semantic technology by 
> already confusing them by two vocabularies for such basic data as 
> contact details....
>
> Best
> Martin
>
> old: 
> http://swoogle.umbc.edu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&service=digest&queryType=digest_ns&searchString=http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0%23 
>
>
> new:
> http://swoogle.umbc.edu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&service=digest&queryType=digest_ns&searchString=http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns%23 
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 11:45:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:29 GMT