"uid" microformats? (was Re: [uf-discuss] ISBN mark-up)

[Etan Wexler]

Tantek Çelik wrote to the Microformats Discuss mailing list on 
2006-04-24 in “Re: "uid" microformats? (was Re: [uf-discuss] ISBN 
mark-up)” (<mid:C0725C5A.6D364%25tantek at cs.stanford.edu>, 
<http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-April/003839.html>):

> hCard normatively references vCard for semantics, which says:
> 
> 3.6.7 UID Type Definition
> 
>    Type purpose: To specify a value that represents a globally unique
>    identifier corresponding to the individual or resource associated
>    with the vCard.

I wrote to Microformats Discuss about the “UID” type’s definition and 
the implications in “[uf-discuss] "uid" microformats?” (2006-04-24, 
<mid:444D8E63.7010501 at stickdog.com>, 
<http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-April/003847.html>).

> Third, I actually see disadvantages in using URIs as a basic unit rather
> than URLs.

All URLs are URIs. What have I missed?

> Thus as a pattern we should use URLs in microformats, not URIs.

If you mean that we should use URIs with authoritative 
location/retrieval semantics, I agree. If you mean that we should use 
URIs whose location/retrieval semantics include broad network 
accessibility, I agree. Goodbye, “file” scheme! Goodbye, “tag” scheme!

> OTOH, an opaque UID which asserts nothing but "globally unique identifier"
> (see above) is both quite simple, and much more "backwards compatible" with
> use of UID in vCard/iCalendar applications today.

How are people publishing “UID” properties in vCards today?

-- 
Etan Wexler.