- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:05:02 +0100
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Peter Rivett <pete.rivett@federatedknowledge.com>, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, resnick@episteme.net
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJVTuRaBvzQZf-reZfMjzkmKC65cEKfTpqNOJdBMgn6MQ@mail.gmail.com>
pá 14. 3. 2025 v 13:01 odesílatel Pierre-Antoine Champin < pierre-antoine@w3.org> napsal: > Hi all, > > unmaintained vocabularies are not a good thing, so generally speaking, I > think it would be great if a Community Group took over the maintenance of > this vocabulary (rdf-dev, rdf-maintenance, or solid are all good candidates > IMO), and I'm happy to act as an interface with the W3C team to help with > this. > > That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with what Dan wrote below. I think > that the value of the `vcard:` vocabulary is that it maps to a largely used > standard (as also pointed out by Tim [1]). Adding features in the `vcard:` > namespace that do not reflect what's in the IETF VCARD format is sending a > bad signal. > > And that's not even needed! The good thing about RDF is that we can mix > and match vocabularies, so if the concept of `AddressBook` is not present > in the VCARD format, an IRI can be minted for it in a *different* > vocabulary (e.g. FOAF), to be used together with terms from the `vcard:` > vocabulary... > I agree in principle. RDF allows mixing vocabularies, but in practice, having multiple terms for "AddressBook" can confuse JSON-LD implementations. If possible, sticking to one term avoids ambiguity and makes reasoning agents happier. > > Now, that being said, if there is a legacy of data and/or applications out > there that use `vcard:AddressBook`, despite the fact that it was not part > of the original vocabulary... *maybe* the pragmatic way to do is probably > to add it to the `vcard:` vocabulary. But it should then be acknowledged > that this term is a "historical anomaly" rather than an W3C-specific fork > of the VCARD standard. > +1 > pa > > [1] https://github.com/solid/contacts/issues/8#issuecomment-2719050285 > [2] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/BagOfChips.html > On 14/03/2025 11:10, 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 >> >
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2025 00:05:18 UTC