W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Representing vCard Objects in RDF (W3C Member Submission)

From: Josef Petrák <me@jspetrak.name>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:03:32 +0100
Cc: public-xg-socialweb@w3.org, foaf-dev Friend of a <foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org>
Message-Id: <B3A5CAAC-9095-48D8-B7F9-18B25ED42867@jspetrak.name>
To: semantic-web@w3.org
There was a thread about that at foaf-dev mailing list in December.

http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-dev/2009-December/009858.html

Anyway, the "some official standard" should be FOAF in my opinion. This could introduce official way to integrade and distinguish FOAF and vCard.

Regards,

Josef

On Feb 11, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:

> 
> Brian,
> 
>> I like the updates, but I always wondered why vCard doesn't include a
>> relation that maps a person/org to their vcards.
> 
> Yup, this is something I found as well sort of funny. My approach was to
> simply come up with such a prop ov:businessCard [1] as I wanted to use it in
> my FOAF file [2] ... surely with the hope that it gets picked up by some
> 'official' standard ;)
> 
> Luckily, back then I picked the right namespace for the range of
> ov:businessCard, so I guess it's safe to use it.
> 
> Cheers,
>      Michael
> 
> [1] http://open.vocab.org/terms/businessCard
> [2] http://sw-app.org/mic.xhtml
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel. +353 91 495730
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> http://sw-app.org/about.html
> 
> 
> 
>> From: Brian Peterson <publicayers@verizon.net>
>> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:55:17 -0500
>> To: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, <public-xg-socialweb@w3.org>,
>> 'semantic-web at W3C' <semantic-web@w3c.org>
>> Subject: RE: Representing vCard Objects in RDF (W3C Member Submission)
>> Resent-From: <public-xg-socialweb@w3.org>
>> Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:56:06 +0000
>> 
>> I like the updates, but I always wondered why vCard doesn't include a
>> relation that maps a person/org to their vcards. Or does it and I just don't
>> see it?
>> 
>> I guess I also don't understand the approach outlined in the comments for
>> VCard saying that the VCard URI could also be a URI for a person or
>> organization. What's the point of having the VCard class if anything can
>> have the dual role of being a vcard? I'd have thought that keeping people
>> separate from vcards but providing a way of associating a person's vcards to
>> themselves would result in cleaner ontologies.
>> 
>> Brian 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf Of Renato Iannella
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:45 PM
>> To: public-xg-socialweb@w3.org; semantic-web at W3C
>> Subject: Representing vCard Objects in RDF (W3C Member Submission)
>> 
>> 
>> We are pleased to announce that an updated W3C Note for "Representing vCard
>> Objects in RDF" is now available:
>> 
>>  http://www.w3.org/Submission/2010/SUBM-vcard-rdf-20100120
>> 
>> This W3C Member Submission merges the original W3C Note [1] with the later
>> "An ontology for vCards" [2] to produce a unified approach to RDF vCard
>> expression.
>> 
>> The W3C Team has also produced some comments on the Submission [3].
>> 
>> Cheers...  Renato Iannella (for the Authors)
>> 
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-vcard-rdf-20010222/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns-2006.html
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2010/01/Comment/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 15:48:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:34 GMT