W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

Re: vCard RDF compromises

From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:37:20 -0700
Message-ID: <46938B90.70009@globalmentor.com>
To: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
CC: semantic-web@w3.org


Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Garret Wilson wrote:
>> I've been busy with other areas of my current project, but this week 
>> I'm officially back to the vCard RDF part. I will be implementing the 
>> new vCard stuff literally within days, so I'd like to get resolution 
>> on some of the issues. I'd really like to share W3C work, so I'm 
>> prepared to make compromises (see archives for earlier discussions on 
>> these issues):
> So what the upshot of this?

That's what I'm wondering. I got a few replies back in favor of my 
suggestion. No one against it. But no word on when/if there would be an 
official acceptance and/or an update of the spec. I also raised a few 
issues that need a bit more discussion, but nothing has come of it. I 
wonder whether there's enough momentum on this list to come to a 
definitive conclusion.

> Also, I'm curious about if or how people would propose to reconcile 
> the new vCard representation with FOAF; particularly the personal name 
> models?

I'd say this is a red herring. First, the FOAF name model is notoriously 
ill-defined. There have been issues regarding the FOAF name model logged 
for years, with no conclusions. The implementations in the wild are 
inconsistent. The names even have inconsistent syntax. And FOAF is dead. 
In May the spec was updated, but little changed besides the version 
number going from 0.1 to 0.9. When I saw new activity, I excitedly sent 
a message to the list regarding the vCard names we're working on. I got 
no reply, and the list has been inactive since. I don't see the value in 
bothering with it.

> I and a colleague are wrapping up another draft of a bibliographic 
> ontology, and am wondering about this. I prefer vCard's name model.

Same here. It's based upon an RFC that has many, many implementations, 
which in turn in based (so claims the RFC) on an ITU recommendation. 
It's at least a place to start that's familiar, reasonably consistent, 
and somewhat complete.

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 13:37:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:25 UTC