Re: vCard RDF merge....

I personally think that alignment with the non-RDF vcard is only one 
issue among others, as long as it is straightforward to populate the 
vcard-RDF structures from vCards and vice versa.

What we really need is a consensual, practical schema for 90% of the 
contact data in web resources.

Martin


Dan Brickley wrote:
> 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
>

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  mhepp@computer.org
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data!
========================================================================

Webcast:
http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/

Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: 
"Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology"
http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp

Tool for registering your business:
http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/

Overview article on Semantic Universe:
http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe

Project page and resources for developers:
http://purl.org/goodrelations/

Tutorial materials:
Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey

http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009