I personally think that alignment with the non-RDF vcard is only one
issue among others, as long as it is straightforward to populate the
vcard-RDF structures from vCards and vice versa.
What we really need is a consensual, practical schema for 90% of the
contact data in web resources.
Martin
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
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
e-mail: mh...@computer.org
phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype: mfhepp
twitter: mfhepp
Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data!
========================================================================
Webcast:
http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/
Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009:
"Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology"
http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp
Tool for registering your business:
http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/
Overview article on Semantic Universe:
http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe
Project page and resources for developers:
http://purl.org/goodrelations/
Tutorial materials:
Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on
Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey
http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009
begin:vcard
fn:Martin Hepp
n:Hepp;Martin
org:Bundeswehr University Munich;E-Business and Web Science Research Group
adr:;;Werner-Heisenberg-Web 39;Neubiberg;;D-85577;Germany
email;internet:mh...@computer.org
tel;work:+49 89 6004 4217
tel;pager:skype: mfhepp
url:http://www.heppnetz.de
version:2.1
end:vcard
