[calsify] Re: vCard-related AddressBook work in W3C-related groups

[[e-mail]]

Hi Michiel,

> 
> The W3C has an ontology which is based on your vCard standard.
> 
> For AddressBook functionality, the Solid project, which is not a W3C
> Working Group, but uses W3C Community Group infrastructure, is using a
> number of RDF terms that are related to vCard, but not part of vCard.
> 
> Our intention is not necessarily to add AddressBook functionality to
> the vCard standard as such.

Just for the list, your PR further down defines "AdressBook" as:
    "Represents a collection of vCard people and/or vCard groups"



> We merely want to document our RDF classes
> and properties at their official namespace URL, without creating
> ambiguity between W3C and IETF.
> 
> I now documented these terms briefly here, as a proposed extension of
> the W3C vCard Ontology: https://github.com/solid/contacts/pull/12.
> 
> My question is as follows: suppose the W3C can be convinced to add
> these terms to the `https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#` namespace, with
> an express comment on each term, something like:
>>  This class/property is used by the Solid Project client-client spec
> for Contacts, but not part of vCard as defined by the IETF
> Would you feel that would be OK?

Rephrasing your question, I understand:

* You (resp. W3C) created a vCard Ontology ([1]?) with a namespace 
prefix "http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#" (Via comments in [1] I found 
"vCard Ontology - for describing People and Organizations" [3])
* You now created an additional concept called "AdressBook", which has 
no direct correspondence to vCard as 
https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#AddressBook (plus some other concepts)
* You want to know if that's OK, resp. if the RDFS:comment in the PR [2] 
is a good idea


In my opinion (list, correct me if I am wrong) you are probably free to 
create any NS prefix like "http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#" and add 
arbitrary concepts to it. There's nothing IETF could probably do about 
this.

The question is rather what Solid users could expect here, as per 
comment in [1]:

   "vCard Ontology for describing People and Organizations allows direct 
conversion
    to and from the widley (sic!) deployed VCARD format, so users should 
be able import
    and export and ideally sync their contacts between their Solid pod 
and other systems"

Without reviewing [3], I assume your new "AddressBook" concept would not 
block users from converting Solid vCard Ontology data to actual VCARD.

You might however probably want to refer both [3] and your notes on 
"AdressBook" rather in 
https://github.com/solid/contacts/blob/main/README.md or in a novel 
mapping document to avoid confusion among Solid users.

Side note: as per "users should be able import and export and ideally 
sync their contacts between their Solid pod and other systems", there's 
a recent draft with the particular goal of data portability among 
different vendors systems [4] which aims to use JSContact [5] (which 
relates to vCard as described in [6]).

Since, as I understand, the Solid project has a considerable emphasis on 
specific facets of data portability, it might worthwhile to get 
feedback/input from a Solid perspective on [4] and perhaps consider 
aligning both efforts?

Best,
Hans-Joerg

[1] 
https://github.com/solid/contacts/blob/main/shapes/contacts-shapes.ttl
[2] "rdfs:comment "This class is used by the Solid Project client-client 
spec for Contacts, but not part of vCard as defined by the IETF"@en ;"
[3] https://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/
[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-happel-mailmaint-pdparchive/
[5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9553/
[6] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9555.html

> 
> Many thanks,
> Michiel de Jong
> Solid CG co-chair
> _______________________________________________
> calsify mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]