[uf-discuss] geo and named locations

[Ben Buchanan]

> Of course this makes perfect sense with most places - like a hotel,
> or a human made landmark. But what about "natural" landmarks - like
> Mt Everest, which have a name, but for which vCard doesn't seem to me
> appropriate (as it's not "contact information").

At first glance, use of hCard does seem a bit of a stretch since the
intention of hCard is to provide "contact information format for
people, companies, and organizations". vCard in turn is "defined for
representing and exchanging a variety of information about an
individual".

So it depends on whether a location or landmark can be personified in
this way. A mental test might be "could the place ever have a
'business card'" or "would I ever store this information in an address
book". On that basis, although a stretch it probably squeaks through.

Thinking it through, a location could well have a phone number (eg.
enquiries number for a national park containing a mountain) and a URL
with more information. Although it would feel more natural to simply
associate a name with the GEO or ADR (without implying a full hCard) I
wouldn't say it's *incorrect*.

So, on balance, ok in an hCard but.... only just :)

Ben

-- 
--- <http://weblog.200ok.com.au/>
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson