- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:16:51 +0200
- To: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
- CC: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>, www-archive@w3.org
On 23/7/09 11:07, Peter Mika wrote: > >> >> peter - would you share those publicly, please? > > Sure, here is my cost/benefit analysis on tel as a resource: > > > Benefits: > > -- Slightly easier data integration, e.g. using SPARQL queries. However, > how many people are doing data integration using SPARQL alone? > -- We would like to be compatible with the ontology... (or should the > ontology be changed?) > > Costs: > > -- Gives the illusion of a resource that you can dereference. Tom Heath > these days is on the road with an excellent Linked Data presentation > that explicitly advises against using non-http URIs. > -- There is not much anyone would ever want to say about a phone number, > which would be the most common reason for making something a resource. > -- Sites owner are expected to read an RFC on how to write down a > telephone number, and then figure out the transformation from their > internal representation to the scheme. Not likely to happen... > -- Search engines index URIs differently than literals or not at all. In > this case, this behaves as a literal in that I want it to be indexed. Also consider recent changes to vCard underway at IETF: see http://danbri.org/words/2008/06/25/348 for a summary. Latest seems to be http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-08.txt """7.4. Communications Properties These properties are concerned with information associated with the way communications with the object the vCard represents are carried out. 7.4.1. TEL Purpose: To specify the telephone number for telephony communication with the object the vCard represents. Value type: A single URI value. It is expected that the URI scheme will be "tel", as specified in [RFC3966], but other schemes MAY be used. """ Mention is also made of the mailto: URI scheme (surely this is still ok to use, privacy issues aside), and a "geo" URI scheme [I-D.mayrhofer-geo-uri] that I don't know much about. If the goal of this vocabulary is to reflect the IETF vCard vocab, keeping close to trends in vCard-land might be prudent... cheers, Dan
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 09:17:35 UTC