Re: vCard RDF compromises

On 10 Jul 2007, at 15:56, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> On 7/10/07, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> > 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've recently been corrected elsewhere on the casual use of the term
> "red herring." The term means a deliberate attempt at obfuscation by
> changing the subject.

[snip]
Not in my idiolect. Garret is using it perfectly correctly. Whether  
such a reconciliation *is* a red herring is something I don't know :)

  Plus, there seems to be disagreement in dictionaries as to whether  
"intent to distract" is critical:
	http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/red%20herring

Personally, they way I think of it is that a red herring is the  
enticing thing that pulls you even against your better judgement.  
Someone can *use* a red herring deliberately to divert or confound,  
but I think they occur naturally as well.

This discussion is probably just a digression, not a red herring :)

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 15:14:40 UTC