Re: contact formats -- IETF/OMA/PoCo/W3C convergence?

I think one of the questions to be answered comes down to process and
goals.

PoCo was designed to be a strict superset of vCard v2.0 (?), and pulled in
attributes from OpenSocial in order to achieve wider adoption. Still, rather
than invent a new schema, PoCo borrowed from what had already been
established and was well understood and widely adopted (albeit, the existing
schemas had limitations, but embracing constraints was a design goal, rather
than an accident).

In 2008, I did conducted a loose survey of the existing contact APIs and did
a mapping between them:

http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/06/04/inventing-contact-schemas-for-fun-and-profit-ugh/
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pSGbbhtwI4kN_nJ1GXeQ7Qg

>From my brief encounters with the vCard v4.0 schema, I've been hard pressed
to find examples in the wild of the needs that should be driving new schema
and new attributes. That's not to say that the need isn't there, but the
process is foreign to me.

Perhaps someone more versed in the v4.0 work could suggest the process for
introducing new attributes and what bar must be met for such modifies to be
accepted?

Chris

2010/8/25 Rich Tibbett <rich.tibbett@gmail.com>

> The W3C DAP Contacts API is operating in the space between the device and
> the web in a similar way to the 'Mozilla Lab's Contacts as First Class
> objects' initiative [1]. We're not the first group to need to consider what
> 'contact' should mean in this mode - whether we accept a device-facing (e..g.
> vCard) or web-facing (e.g. PoCo) paradigm or whether there is sane
> singularity to be found somewhere in between.
>
> I wonder if discussions within IETF vcarddav on aligning Portable Contacts
> and vCard is producing any results and whether vCard v4 is capable of
> providing mappings or alignment to Portable Contacts...and by proxy
> long-needed clarity to this issue within W3C, prior to publication of the
> vCard v4 RFC.
>
> We will not invent a new contact format or a subset thereof within W3C. In
> order to make that assumption stick we need some clear signals from your
> respective working groups on a unified way forward wrt contact formats.
>
> - Rich
>
> [1] http://mozillalabs.com/contacts
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> +jsmarr as the "godfather" of Portable Contacts, who I know has a strong
>> opinion on this issue!
>>
>> +1 for interest in resolving this issue, and coming out with a *sane*,
>> pragmatic path forward.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> - added Peter Saint-Andre, IETF Apps AD, AD for vcarddav
>>> - agreed. we should have a discussion, asap.
>>> - I'm available.
>>> - suggestion: create a doodle pool for conf call timing.
>>>
>>> Marc.
>>>
>>> Le 10-08-25 11:24, Thomas Roessler a écrit :
>>>
>>>  Hello,
>>>>
>>>> this note is addressed to various individuals involved in contact format
>>>> related work at and liaison relationships between W3C, IETF, OMA, and
>>>> Portable Contacts.
>>>>
>>>> The W3C Device API WG is working on a JavaScript API for address books:
>>>>        http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/
>>>>
>>>> The API's contact data model is currently based on the Portable Contacts
>>>> data model.
>>>>
>>>> We understand that the IETF carddav WG would prefer us to base our work
>>>> on a model that is compatible with vcard4.  We further understand that the
>>>> vcardrev draft has been in WG last call for a while.  It appears that there
>>>> have been recent comments on the IETF carddav WG's mailing list that suggest
>>>> a discussion about alignment between PoCo and vcard4.
>>>>
>>>> Further, we have received a liaison note from OMA that suggests that we
>>>> possibly adapt OMA's Converged Address Book work.  We understand that the
>>>> OMA format is about to be frozen as well:
>>>>
>>>> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/docs/OMA-LS_877-OMA_COM_to_W3C_Contact_Fields_Attachment-20100823-A.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The W3C Device API WG is currently reviewing the various specifications
>>>> and trying to see in detail where the formats agree or disagree; that work
>>>> should be done within a week.  (Kudos to Rich Tibbett at Opera Software.)
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like an informal discussion about overall directions for the
>>>> various contacts formats, based on that review, would be beneficial in order
>>>> to see whether further fragmentation can be avoided.  We're willing to host
>>>> a phone conference for this conversation at W3C.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of this e-mail is to see whether there is interest in this
>>>> sort of conversation, and whether there are timing considerations that we
>>>> all should be aware of.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Thomas Roessler, W3C<tlr@w3.org>   (@roessler)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> =========
>>> IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
>>> Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
>>> DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca
>>> NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Messina
>> Open Web Advocate, Google
>>
>> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
>> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
>> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>>
>> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>>
>
>


-- 
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate, Google

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
....or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private