Hi Dan, I wanted to ask for some more details about what you wrote. On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 16:08, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > 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. > Is this something that is set in stone? It seems that http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns# was originally created in 2010 with https://www.w3.org/submissions/2010/SUBM-vcard-rdf-20100120/, and then in 2014 https://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/ updated it. It is now 2025, and in practice we are using 6 "squatted" terms, see https://github.com/solid/contacts/issues/11#issuecomment-2715154170. Who is in charge of deciding the future of http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#? Is this something we as its users can influence? If so then I see 4 possible ways forward: 1) keep squatting the terms like we are now (not the proper way to practise semantic web, of course) 2) publish a new note (after the 2010 one and the 2014 one), in which we update http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns# 3) move our terms to FOAF and publish them there 4) redesign our addressbook functionality from scratch and switch for instance to SIOC, see https://github.com/solid/contacts/issues/8#issuecomment-2713487899 I would like to know what the process would be for option 2. Many thanks, Michiel de Jong Solid CG co-chair
Received on Friday, 14 March 2025 08:14:47 UTC