Yes, but you have to do the reality check: how many people have heard of

#1 http
#2 mailto
#3 tel
#4 geo
....

Peter

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


Reply via email to