Re: vcard:AddressBook

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 18:29 Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> po 31. 3. 2025 v 19:22 odesílatel Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> napsal:
>
>> The vast majority of rdf classes are for describing “non rdf” stuff from
>> everyday world. People, places, etc. Some are document-like eg Dublin Core
>> typical usecase.
>>
>> The reason this is slippery to think about is that RDF’s role in
>> describing these things is often kind of transparent - part of the
>> application infrastructure. Except sometimes we do talk about file formats
>> for rdf and other kinds of thing. The Linked Data idea tried to set
>> expectations that URIs for instances of all types of thing can be
>> dereferenced to some kind of RDF, even if the type has nothing itself to do
>> with RDF….
>>
>
> Wont a vcard AddressBook just be a set of vcard : contacts?  Much like
> Tracker is to -> Task.  Or is something else planned for it.
>

Not my type; not my plans! But we should know how to answer questions about
which entities fall within it’s definition, and we cannot assume questions
all come from folk with RDF expertise

>
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 17:37 Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That’s a good question. Are there other examples where RDF classes are
>>> used to describe non-RDF documents?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 17:41, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is a vcard file in ietf format a vcard:Addressbook in this sense?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 16:34 Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unless someone objects I will contact W3C staff to make the edit in
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Michiel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 at 10:41, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The reaction on the Calsify mailing list (from my respected personal
>>>>>> friend Hans-Joerg Happel) sounded positive:
>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/17sFwUiDu-zp77vbiQBJRjR-_L8/
>>>>>> There was also a thumbs-up from Pete Rivett on Tim Berners-Lee point
>>>>>> here:
>>>>>> https://github.com/solid/contacts/issues/8#issuecomment-2719050285
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That makes me think that adding the terms from
>>>>>> https://github.com/solid/contacts/pull/12/files?short_path=d90e4ed#diff-d90e4edb2d214338309e8948af2f00da8dac0954ae325f903ad5b85d9ae6e9e5
>>>>>> into https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns could be a reasonable path
>>>>>> forward? What would be the next step to explore that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And in general, can we (as a DX improvement) create links from
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns to https://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/
>>>>>> and the other documents that describe it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>> Michiel de Jong
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 16:19, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-03-20 15:52, Michiel de Jong wrote:
>>>>>>> > Thanks! I asked them how they would feel about vCard-related RDF
>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>> > existing only at W3C:
>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/
>>>>>>> > TtTXanhR-iK39MUIiaQv41lnS7U/ <
>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/
>>>>>>> > calsify/TtTXanhR-iK39MUIiaQv41lnS7U/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to increase the chances of getting new terms into vCard,
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> suggest dialing back on Solid. Sharing implementation experience is
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> useful, but be prepared to generalise it - without making it seem
>>>>>>> Solid-specific - so that it has broader applicability and a higher
>>>>>>> chance of gaining wider support. Anything Solid-centric for vCard
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> will most likely need to remain within the Solid ecosystem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Sarven
>>>>>>> https://csarven.ca/#i
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>