Ross Singer wrote:

For vCard there is an RDF namespace and a (not very nice) XML
vcard-temp (see

This is vCard as RDF, not vCard the format (which is text based). It
would be the equivalent of saying, "here's an hCard, it's the same
thing, right?" although the reason I may be requesting a vCard in its
native format is because I have a vCard parser or an application that
consumes them (Exchange, for example).

For vCard native there is a mime type, so you should identify the format with a mime type instead of an XML or RDF namespace:

text/x-vcard  or as URI (if you need one):

Because unAPI relies on mime types, you can already identify native vCard with it:

<format name="irrelevant" type="text/x-vcard" docs="irrelevant" />

But in unAPI there is no standard way to identify vCard in RDF although there is an official RDF namespace. That's why people start to create their own identifiers. For an application that does not know about this library-community-subgroup-private-identifiers, there is only:

<format name="foo" type="application/rdf+xml" docs="foodoc" />
<format name="foo" type="text/n3" docs="foodoc" />

Who knows that "foo" and "foodoc" refer to vCard in RDF?

That depends whether you want to be taken serious outside the library
community and target at the web as a whole or not.

My point is that there's a step before that, possibly, where the
"theory" behind unAPI, Jangle, whatever, is tested to even see if it's
going in the right direction before writing it up formally as an RFC.

Ok. I think that unAPI, Jangle, whatever are going in the right direction - so let's proceed!


Jakob Voß <>, skype: nichtich
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242,

Reply via email to