Re: vcard:AddressBook

Yes, sounds like a versatile and flexible solution, but setting up such a
per-term list would be redesigning the semantic web, wouldn't it?
For now, I have good hope that we can get it working at its
current location, so no need to go to such lengths, I think.

I opened an issue for W3C staff here:
https://github.com/w3c/w3c-website/issues/716
which looped me back to this mailing list, and I also tried contacting a
couple of W3C staff members directly, to which I got no response, but I'm
sure sooner or later someone at W3C staff will be able to make the edit for
us. :)

Cheers,
Michiel de Jong
Solid CG co-chair

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 at 14:15, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> út 25. 3. 2025 v 10:43 odesílatel Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
> napsal:
>
>> The reaction on the Calsify mailing list (from my respected personal
>> friend Hans-Joerg Happel) sounded positive:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/17sFwUiDu-zp77vbiQBJRjR-_L8/
>> There was also a thumbs-up from Pete Rivett on Tim Berners-Lee point
>> here: https://github.com/solid/contacts/issues/8#issuecomment-2719050285
>>
>> That makes me think that adding the terms from
>> https://github.com/solid/contacts/pull/12/files?short_path=d90e4ed#diff-d90e4edb2d214338309e8948af2f00da8dac0954ae325f903ad5b85d9ae6e9e5
>> into https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns could be a reasonable path
>> forward? What would be the next step to explore that?
>>
>> And in general, can we (as a DX improvement) create links from
>> https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns to https://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/ and
>> the other documents that describe it?
>>
>
> I think this issue really highlights the bigger challenge of having a
> stable URI for terms, versus getting blocked as a developer.
>
> There’s probably no one-size-fits-all solution here — it likely depends on
> the developer’s preference in the end.
>
> That said, I think it would be super helpful to maintain a list of terms
> that map to stable locations. You could start with the usual schema.org
> ones and then gradually add common terms. If something like vCard changes
> over time, just update the reference. Feels like a nice middle ground for
> folks trying to balance existing vocabularies with keeping things unblocked.
>
> It wouldn’t have to be mandatory, of course — but it might really help
> those who want to move fast without getting tangled up in red tape. I’d be
> happy to help maintain a mapping like that if it would be useful.
>
>
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> Michiel de Jong
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 16:19, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-03-20 15:52, Michiel de Jong wrote:
>>> > Thanks! I asked them how they would feel about vCard-related RDF terms
>>> > existing only at W3C: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/
>>> > TtTXanhR-iK39MUIiaQv41lnS7U/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/
>>> > calsify/TtTXanhR-iK39MUIiaQv41lnS7U/>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to increase the chances of getting new terms into vCard, I
>>> suggest dialing back on Solid. Sharing implementation experience is very
>>> useful, but be prepared to generalise it - without making it seem
>>> Solid-specific - so that it has broader applicability and a higher
>>> chance of gaining wider support. Anything Solid-centric for vCard use
>>> will most likely need to remain within the Solid ecosystem.
>>>
>>> -Sarven
>>> https://csarven.ca/#i
>>>
>>>