- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 10:13:34 +0200
- To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
- CC: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
On 7/5/09 08:51, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: > 4. Until this will have happened, there is no rush to update existing > applications that create output using the old vCard specification. (Due > to the masses of "old" vCard data, it would not be prudent for any > data-consuming application to accept only "new" vCard data anyway - see > my SWOOGLE figures from the initial mail - 230,000 vs. 470 datasets - > which implies that continuing to create "old"-style vCard should be > tolerable.) Given that vCard is itself again an moving target, and that the most comprehensive modern treatment of "classic addressbooks" is now Portable Contacts, the best future direction isn't entirely clear. I intend to better align the addressbook-ish portion of FOAF more closely with the Portable Contacts / hCard idiom, but also look into a handling of the "work", "home" etc distinctions that can be applied to all kinds of account (blog, bookmarks etc.), so I don't expect perfect bi-directional 1:1 mappings. A practical question: can the older flavour of vCard in RDF plausibly be handled by SPARQL CONSTRUCT rules, or does the use of rdf:Bag etc make this tricky? I encourage anyone interested in progressing this discussion to join the new W3C Social Web incubator group, see http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/ ... we had our first meeting yesterday and could address this through a taskforce or more informal liaison with any group of collaborators who'd like to report to their peers through the XG. cheers, Dan
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 08:14:15 UTC