MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 15:48:14 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CA+aD3u29hunsLMaSa=Q2HKkzZo0o0PG2QqPQAW6W5PPNxoxOgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: calsify@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f1d9a10630c73aec"
Message-ID-Hash: AOJH2G4G4JUT4AZTSVSMGQBB33IPGCCE
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bcalsify=5D_vCard-related_AddressBook_work_in_W3C-related_groups?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/TtTXanhR-iK39MUIiaQv41lnS7U>

--000000000000f1d9a10630c73aec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi all,

Thanks Orie for the invitation to share our question in this mailing list.

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. 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?

Many thanks,
Michiel de Jong
Solid CG co-chair

--000000000000f1d9a10630c73aec
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi all,<div><br></div><div>Thanks Orie for the invitation =
to share our question in this mailing list.</div><div><br></div><div>The W3=
C has an ontology which is based on your vCard standard.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>For AddressBook functionality, the Solid project, which is not a W3C=
 Working Group, but uses W3C Community Group infrastructure, is using a num=
ber of RDF terms that are related to vCard, but not part of vCard.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>Our intention is not necessarily to add AddressBook functi=
onality to the vCard standard as such. We merely want to document our RDF c=
lasses and properties at their official namespace URL, without creating amb=
iguity between W3C and IETF.</div><div><br></div><div>I now documented thes=
e terms briefly here, as a proposed extension of the W3C vCard Ontology:=C2=
=A0<a href=3D"https://github.com/solid/contacts/pull/12">https://github.com=
/solid/contacts/pull/12</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>My question is as fol=
lows: suppose the W3C can be convinced to add these terms to the `<a href=
=3D"https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#`">https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#`<=
/a> namespace, with an=C2=A0express=C2=A0comment on each term, something li=
ke:</div><div>&gt;=C2=A0 This class/property is used by the Solid Project c=
lient-client spec for Contacts, but not part of vCard as defined by the IET=
F</div><br><div>Would you feel that would be OK?</div><div><br></div><div>M=
any thanks,</div><div>Michiel de Jong</div><div>Solid CG co-chair</div></di=
v>

--000000000000f1d9a10630c73aec--