- From: Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 10:58:49 +0100
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>, semantic-web@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CA+aD3u2FxZxhb_qAi60jP3synv5u=cXGSK+FAbwikowCUf-w0g@mail.gmail.com>
Hm, vocab-services@w3.org bounced. Does https://www.w3.org/2016/08/namespaces/ need to be updated? Cheers, Michiel On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 at 10:56, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org> wrote: > Yes, I added it to the Solid CG agenda for Wednesday: > https://hackmd.io/NR7hHvEbQcKDBHEJUh4hXg#Moving-AddressBook-from-vcard-to-foaf > > Also cc'ing vocab-services now to this thread, which I said I would do but > hadn't actually. > > > Cheers, > Michiel de Jong > Solid CG co-chair > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 at 05:15, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2025 09:59:06 UTC