Re: vCard - Old vs. New?

someone mentioned nepomuk,

so these are the ontologies in use at dev.nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org 
and partly at nepomuk.kde.org:
the contact ontology:

http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/nco/

there is open source tool support, such as a vcard->nco converter and a 
Microsoft Outlook crawler:
http://aperture.sourceforge.net

misses some documentation and examples though, but the update and 
maintenance process is there,
we also aim at sustainability, NOKIA uses part of this ontology for the 
maemo platform.

best
Leo

It was Peter Mika who said at the right time 06.05.2009 13:43 the 
following words:
> Hi Martin,
>
> This issue came up at VoCamp in Galway, and we decided to settle it in 
> general by trying to agree on the mappings of microformats to RDF:
>
> http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Microformats_in_RDF
>
> At least Sindice and our crawler support now the same mappings for the 
> majority of microformats.
>
> For the specific case of VCard:
>
> http://semanticweb.org/wiki/HCard
>
> We agreed that the proposal for Representing VCard in RDF 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf> by Renato Iannella is NOW DEPRECATED. 
> The canonical representation of VCard in RDF 
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#> is also hosted at W3C and 
> maintained by Harry Halpin and Norm Walsh.
>
> Unfortunately, W3C still has to take the actual step of deprecating 
> (or even better, moving to archive) the old note.
>
> And again unfortunately, it's the state of the art in the Semantic Web 
> that people use vocabularies that rank highest in their favorite 
> search engine. Everything at W3C, no matter how outdated, comes up 
> high ;)
>
> Best,
> Peter
>
>
>
>
> Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
>> Dear all:
>>
>> As far as I can see, there are now two vCard variants in use - the 
>> original
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#
>>
>> and the new one
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#
>>
>> Now - which one should data providers and application developers use? 
>> I see the technical advantages of the new variant and the 
>> deficiencies of the old approach. However, a quick SWOOGLE statistics 
>> shows that there are only 470 RDF documents using the new version vs. 
>> 233,595 documents using the old version.
>>
>> How do current Semantic Web applications handle this issue? Do they 
>> honor data expressed in either variant?
>> I see that Yahoo Searchmonkey, for instance, endorses the new 
>> namespace - what's with others?
>>
>> We should not irritate potential users of Semantic technology by 
>> already confusing them by two vocabularies for such basic data as 
>> contact details....
>>
>> Best
>> Martin
>>
>> old: 
>> http://swoogle.umbc.edu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&service=digest&queryType=digest_ns&searchString=http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0%23 
>>
>>
>> new:
>> http://swoogle.umbc.edu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&service=digest&queryType=digest_ns&searchString=http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns%23 
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
____________________________________________________
DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de

Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
____________________________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 16:17:29 UTC