Re: vCard - Old vs. New?

On 11 May 2009, at 13:19, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> This process has not been done in a an RDF Calendaring group, as  
> there has not been apparent energy from the community (so far) for a  
> WG to be formed.
> It was just done under an Interest Group.
> Hence a bunch of community drafts, no working group, no process, no  
> chair following it, no team contact, etc.

An W3C Interest Group has a clear process:
   <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#GAGeneral>

As a W3C member, I would have expected the "new" vCard ontology to be  
a W3C IG Note (at least) - that would have raised its profile and,  
hopefully, flagged its relationship/conflict with other W3C submissions.

> No recommendations from W3C.

This URI <http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns>, apparently,  is now enough  
of a recommendation.

> You get (in quality, stability, consensus) what you pay for (in  
> people's time).
>
> We could change this -- an incubator group could start instantly,  
> draw up a charter for a WG, and  do the thing properly.

Perhaps the SWIG could still do this...

>
> Tim
>
>
> On 2009-05 -10, at 20:52, Renato Iannella wrote:
>
>>
>> On 7 May 2009, at 16:45, Peter Mika wrote:
>>
>>> For the world at large, the later note (by Harry and Norm) seems  
>>> to be
>>> an update on the earlier note, since it fixes many of the issues  
>>> (naming
>>> conventions, use of certain RDF constructs etc.) That is once  
>>> people see
>>> both... the problem is that people stumble upon one or the other  
>>> quite
>>> randomly and of course once they find a vcard in RDF note from the  
>>> W3C
>>> they will not hunt to see if there is an other one ;)
>>
>>
>> ...this seems to be a problem with the "semantic web"...if you find  
>> a RDF schema you don't like, then reinvent the entire ontology  
>> elsewhere (even at the same organisation)!
>>
>> The "new" ontology does not even recognise/refer to the "old"  
>> ontology.
>>
>> Looking back at the archives:
>>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Nov/0079.html>
>>
>> it seems that any private discussion can lead to a W3C  
>> namespace...then after the fact does the process "Let the  
>> discussion begin"...
>>
>> W3C needs to manage this process much much better...
>>
>> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>> NICTA
>>
>

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
NICTA