Re: vcard:AddressBook

Thank you Dan, let's see if we can make that happen!

Let's discuss this further in https://github.com/solid/contacts/issues/8

Cheers,
Michiel

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 16:08, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 14:31 Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the pointers Sarven!
>>
>> I agree with Melvin though, if the people using the vcard ontology (we)
>> are unable to edit the vcard ontology, then that means that the tools are
>> not aligned in our favour.
>>
>
> I believe the point of that vcard-rdf note was to reflect into RDF the
> existing vCard design rather than to improve upon it, ie making up new
> stuff.
>
>
> Looking at
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6350.html
>
> ….the string “addressbook” only seems used once, for an example website
> url path.
>
> How much of vcard-rdf are you actually using? If there are non-gigantic
> patches to FOAF that would address this usecase and the community generally
> thought useful we could look into that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>> If the answer to "how can I use the vcard ontology" is "don't use it, use
>> a different one", then that also doesn't really help us.
>>
>> That repo https://github.com/w3c/ns/ you mentioned says it's not
>> deployed, and I can't find the source code of
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/ on GitHub.
>>
>> I also read https://github.com/w3c/ns/issues/2 (thanks for working on
>> that!) and maybe the conclusion is indeed that the W3C is not offering its
>> community groups sufficient tooling for evolving vocabularies?
>>
>> Of course, I can host a vocabulary on https://michielbdejong.com/ns/ or
>> on https://solidproject.org/ns/ but that will create a walled garden
>> without interoperability.
>> We can also migrate away from W3C namespaced vocabularies to schema.org,
>> but that only works well if we migrate the entire vcard vocabulary (copy
>> and deprecate), so that all app developers end up at schema.org and we
>> can maintain inter-app interop.
>> Mixing (newer) predicates from one vocabulary onto classes from another
>> one soon becomes ugly and messy, and harder for the developer to stay
>> compatible with the RDF that other developers write.
>>
>> I hope the W3C can offer us a workable solution for this, because to me
>> they feel like the most suitable organisation in the world to be the go-to
>> place for interoperable semantic web ontologies.
>>
>> CC'ing vocab-services@w3.org to this thread, according to
>> https://www.w3.org/2016/08/namespaces/ they respond within two business
>> days, so let's wait for their instructions.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michiel
>>
>> On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 11:25, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> čt 6. 3. 2025 v 11:16 odesílatel Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
>>> napsal:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-03-06 10:04, Michiel de Jong wrote:
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> > In the Solid CG we are using `vcard:AddressBook`, but it came to our
>>>> > attention that this class is not defined in
>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-
>>>> > rdf/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/>.
>>>> >
>>>> > The document says:
>>>> >  > If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send
>>>> > them to semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>>
>>>> >
>>>> > We have documented/used `vcard:AddressBook` in the following places:
>>>> > * https://pdsinterop.org/conventions/addressbook/ <https://
>>>> > pdsinterop.org/conventions/addressbook/>
>>>> > * https://github.com/SolidOS/contacts-pane/blob/
>>>> >
>>>> ae1819676bb19a2b0cc7a02b4417c96751ff5297/mintNewAddressBook.js#L60-L75
>>>> > <https://github.com/SolidOS/contacts-pane/blob/
>>>> >
>>>> ae1819676bb19a2b0cc7a02b4417c96751ff5297/mintNewAddressBook.js#L60-L75>
>>>> > * https://github.com/solid-contrib/data-modules/blob/
>>>> > d732671f5c5a37b9748ce90bf3220e2e36336d8f/contacts/src/rdflib/
>>>> > ContactsModuleRdfLib.ts#L48 <https://github.com/solid-contrib/data-
>>>> > modules/blob/d732671f5c5a37b9748ce90bf3220e2e36336d8f/contacts/src/
>>>> > rdflib/ContactsModuleRdfLib.ts#L48>
>>>> >
>>>> > How can we go about adding `vcard:AddressBook` to the vCard
>>>> ontology, or
>>>> > what would be the best way forward here?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Many thanks,
>>>> > Michiel de Jong
>>>> > Co-chair
>>>> > Solid CG
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Michiel, best to check directly with W3C Team.
>>>>
>>>> You may want to look at Solid CG's Contribution Guidelines:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#vocabulary-management
>>>>
>>>> and perhaps more specifically the referenced:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/2016/08/namespaces/
>>>>
>>>> That's roughly the most reasonable path considering that the SW IG is
>>>> closed. Other changes (additions or errata) were done in the same way
>>>> to
>>>> vocabularies that are no longer maintained by a W3C Group or a BG/CG.
>>>>
>>>> So, propose the actual changes somewhere, e.g.,
>>>> https://github.com/solid/vocab or perhaps https://github.com/w3c/ns/
>>>> (although that's not where development on vcard happens), and then
>>>> signal the wider community (as you've done with this mailing list) for
>>>> review.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, AFAIK, the use of missing vcard:AddressBook was initially raised
>>>> in:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/solid/type-indexes/issues/35
>>>
>>>
>>> If we want to effectively build apps, we need to be able to evolve
>>> vocabs in a more agile way than this.
>>>
>>> I was thinking about this very problem yesterday.
>>>
>>> My conclusion was to make something, similar to, schema.org for Solid.
>>> As a baseline it would be a context that contains all of schema.org.
>>> Then add aliases to all the commonly used terms in Solid.  And allow
>>> extension points.  I think I could fire this up quite quickly.  Would
>>> anyone else have use for such a thing?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Sarven
>>>> https://csarven.ca/#i
>>>>
>>>>