W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2009

Re: vCard - Old vs. New?

From: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 11:27:07 +1000
CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2F98269D-0DB5-44AF-9D76-F51A4C48D8D4@nicta.com.au>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

On 19 May 2009, at 19:09, Dan Brickley wrote:

> But I don't want people to have to use two vocabs for saying pretty  
> basic things.

Is "foaf:myersBriggs" a pretty basic thing?

> If you want an exact 1:1 representation of vCard, then the
> vcard-in-rdf docs are your best bet. If you want any of the semi- 
> random
> mischief in the FOAF spec, you should also be able to mention an  
> address
> without needing a 2nd namespace...


Much, is not all, of the "FOAF Basics" [1] is a repeat of vCard  
semantics.

But if you did not want a second namespace, then reusing ontologies is  
a lost cause!

I thought the Semantic Web / Linked Data was all about this ;-)

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
NICTA

[1] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 01:42:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 May 2009 01:42:07 GMT