Re: vCard/iCalendar RDF process document 2007-04-06

Kjetil,

Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 April 2007 02:19, Garret Wilson wrote:
>   
>> The ontology will be comprehensive. It will capture virtually all
>> information that will be found in virtually all vCards. An RDF
>> ontology that leaves unrepresented a significant amount of vCard
>> information in existence would not be satisfactory.
>>     
>
> Actually, I think we didn't set out to be quite so ambitious, rather we 
> aimed to represent the same subset as represented in hcard. I think 
> this could also be up for debate, and we should certainly resolve it 
> quickly.
>   

It's too bad I missed that debate; there certainly doesn't seem to be 
strong feelings one way or another on this list at the moment. :) My 
feelings are pretty strong for full representation; it would be pitiful, 
in my view, if the RDF ontology data was restricted to the range of 
hCard. If RDF vCard can't support most existing plain vCards in the 
wild, then what's the point of making an RDF ontology that either A ) 
will cause data loss when converted from plain vCard, or B ) won't be 
used because people don't want to lose their data? Just on the face of 
it, do we want to say that conversion to RDF is a benefit, but it won't 
support all the data you currently have? vCard isn't really that complex 
of a concept, after all...

In the absence of strong opinions in favor of hCard range restriction, 
I'll continue in the direction of full vCard support.

Garret

Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 01:03:27 UTC