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

Re: vCard in RDF

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:43:06 -0400
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <1275914586.11610.28.camel@ubuhebe>
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 12:20 +0100, Harry Halpin wrote:
> 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.

Apart from that http- vs non-http URIs debate, no I don't know of any
technical reason to use separate namespaces.  For OWL 2 XML [1], Bijan
Parsia pushed for using the same namespace for both OWL syntaxes, and
while some of us were slightly concerned about it, no one in the Working
Group, or among the reviewers, could come up with an actual problem with
this practice.

Of course, that http- vs non-http URIs  issue makes this a non-starter,
unless we can get the IETF to change to an http URI, as below.  I'd
object to the RDF version not using an http URI.

> 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#

Absolutely.   I'm not sure how much momentum there is around that
string, and what versioning issues there might be, but I'd also be quite
happy with:
  http://www.w3.org/ns/vcard# or
  http://www.w3.org/ns/vcard/

> 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?

Yeah.   It seems like the most urgent thing to interface with the IETF
WG on this and push, quite seriously, for changing the namespace and
possibly for including the RDF mapping in the RFC.   I expect it will be
hard work, though -- most people tend to be pretty set in their ways on
urn's vs http.  But last call is kind of a "put up or shut up moment" so
it's worth a try.  I'm willing to help if necessary, but I don't have a
whole lot of IETF or vcard expertise.

    -- Sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-xml-serialization/
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 12:43:20 GMT

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