Re: vcard:AddressBook

po 10. 3. 2025 v 15:13 odesílatel Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
napsal:

> 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
>

Nice work!

vcard / contacts is probably a special case because of the big network
effect that it has.

But I think in general we should move a bit more quickly with vocabs, in
order to help, app developers

Let's try and work with vcard vocab, and the change control that has built
up around that.  But give it a time limit after which we can say we are
blocked.

RDF lends itself quite well to contingency planning if the primary approach
doesnt work.

So, let's try and see if we can add AddressBook to vcard, say, in the next
2 weeks?


>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>