Re: vcard:AddressBook

I'm not entirely clear on what info Dan was looking for from me (the 
VCARD Working Group completed its work quite some time ago), but I can 
say that the IETF continues to maintain the vCard spec 
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6350), and now has jCard 
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7095.html) and JSContact 
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9553.html), both of which were 
produced in the CALEXT WG and might be of interest).

Let me know if you were looking for something more.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

On 14 Mar 2025, at 3:10, Dan Brickley wrote:

> (Copying
> mailto:resnick@episteme.net <resnick@episteme.net> from
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/vcarddav/about/ on this discussion 
> of
> the maintainability of w3c’s rdf versions of vCard).
>
> I’m repeating myself here but to be crystal clear:
>
> vCard is NOT W3C’s standard. It belongs to the IETF. The W3C 
> documents are
> convenient mappings of that IETF design/schema/vocabulary into RDF’s 
> data
> model. Adding imagined terms into RDF applications using it
>
> The FOAF offer was to put a simple subset isomophic to full vCard in
> somewhere friendly and updatable, whereas adding something into a spec
> labelled vCard but maintained at W3C looks to the whole world as if 
> the Web
> Consortium has forked another standards org’s spec and added new 
> things
> without liaison or coordination (eg on LDAP and XML Schema 
> representations).
>
> Cheers
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 09:43 Peter Rivett <
> pete.rivett@federatedknowledge.com> wrote:
>
>> As someone involved in a few ontology standards myself (a few at OMG
>> including the recently-adopted DPROD extension to DCAT, FIBO at EDM
>> Council, LEI ontology at GLEIF) I find it hard to believe that W3C 
>> would
>> appear to effectively abandon such a useful and widely-used standard 
>> as
>> vCard. Though, as far as I can see, it was never a formal standard 
>> but
>> merely a Member Submission?
>>
>> I agree with giving W3C the chance to respond, and in fact just 
>> noticed
>> https://github.com/solid/contacts/issues/8#issuecomment-2719050285 
>> which
>> indicates from the top a willingness to properly maintain it in W3C 
>> which
>> I'd fully support.
>>
>> Even if maintained in W3C I think we should aim for the following 
>> goals:
>>
>>    - Clear authoritative location (ideally GitHub)
>>    - Published or generated documentation and examples (in addition 
>> to
>>    the ontology file)
>>    - Clear transparent process for raising issues/suggesting changes
>>    - Trusted people nominated to manage the process, approve changes 
>> and
>>    publish releases
>>    - Namespace with long-term stability that resolves to the ontology
>>
>> I think the W3C DCAT specification meets all the above and would be a 
>> good
>> model to follow.
>>
>> Regards
>> Pete
>>
>>
>>
>> Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@federatedknowledge.com)
>> Federated Knowledge, LLC (LEI 98450013F6D4AFE18E67)
>> tel: +1-701-566-9534
>> Schedule a meeting at https://calendly.com/rivettp
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2025 1:14 AM
>>
>> *To:* Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
>> *Cc:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>; Sarven Capadisli <
>> info@csarven.ca>; semantic-web@w3.org <semantic-web@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: vcard:AddressBook
>>
>> 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
>>