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

Re: vCard in RDF

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 12:20:24 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTin6jQb0S2drABebEWfE4EFaveYlEIAtZvVunA7n@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
> I note that an IETF working group last-call has been issued for version 4.0
> of vCard, including an XML version of same:
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav/current/msg01490.html
>
> There is an RDF version of vCard:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/
> which I am assuming the authors intend to update at some stage.
>
> I have a particular question about the RDF version:  apart from the ongoing
> debate about the desirability of http- vs non-http URIs for namespaces, is
> there any particular reason to not use the name namespace URI for the RDF
> version and the IETF XML version?  With a few intermediate nodes, I think
> the XML version would map pretty directly to RDF, and could use the name
> namespace URIs, but can't decide if that would be asking for problems in the
> future.

I think the obvious thing is to update the RDF version and make a XSLT
(GRDDL) from the vcard XML format over to the updated RDF version.

Looking at the latest RDF version, it's weird they aren't using a http
Namespace, but instead a URN

-----
7.1. Registration of the XML Namespace


   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:vcard-4.0

   Registrant Contact:  Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>

   XML:  None.  Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
-------------

Perhaps we should ask them to use the same namespace as we are?

The namespace for the latest version of vCard in RDF is:

http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#

Although I'm a bit overwhelmed till the end of the month with various
deadlines, my time will free up after June, and perhaps we could map
the latest vCard 4.0 over to the new RDF namespace and update the
member submission to deal with any new features?

          cheers,
             harry


We could use the same namespace, what namesp
>
> #g
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 11:20:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:36 GMT