[uf-discuss] Re: hCard for non-contact-able locations (Was:Disambiguation Conventions?)

[Joe Andrieu]

Scott Reynen, March 22, 2007 2:26 PM wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
> 
> > For example, since it was initially stabilized hCard has been
> > changed to
> > include "place" in its semantics, yet we have no way to let 
> parsers  
> > know
> > that the "new" hCards may not be people, companies, or 
> organizations,
> > but instead may also be places. vCards were for /contactable/  
> > entities.
> 
> I was just reading the vCalendar (not vCard) spec [1], and was  
> reminded of the above when I read this:
> 
> > For example, the alternate representation may specify either an
> > LDAP URI pointing to an LDAP server entry or a CID URI pointing to  
> > a MIME body part containing a vCard [RFC 2426] for the location.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the history of the vCard and vCalendar RFCs,  
> but I see that Frank Dawson was an author of both, so it looks like  
> he actually did intend vCards to work for non-contact-able locations  
> (e.g. the example of "conference room").  That doesn't change  
> people's expectations for hCard, but I thought it was interesting  
> that this expansion of hCard mirrored vCard without even realizing it.
> 
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.txt

Scott,

Excellent discovery. Given how thorough the rest of the specs are, it is surprising that this alignment isn't present elsewhere. At
one point, I had traced the hCard through its entire heritage, never really getting a clear specification. [2]  I'd be curious to
see if there were any conversations in the standardization process that kept location out of RFC2426.  However, given Frank Dawson
is lead author on both vCalendar and vCard, location definitely seems to be part of his conceptualzation for what a vCard could be
used for.


The larger issue, I think, is one of governance. That is, what is the process to approve or revise a microformat? It is all pretty
ad-hoc at the moment, leading to seamingly arbitrary assertions, including for example, GEO is locked because hCard is locked.

When did hCard get locked?  Was that before or after we added "place" as a meaning for it?  I don't recall a community discussion
about locking anything.

If hCard 1.0 is locked, ok. I actually think that's totally appropriate. Then, what's the process for hCard 1.1 or 2.0? 

Or more pertinant to recent conversations what is the process for Geo 2.0?  Although hCard 1.0 locks Geo, it seems reasonable for a
Geo 2.0 to be considered.

Does anyone else think it would be useful to establish processes around these sorts of decisions? Or do people think that wiki edits
monitored by admins is the best solution?

[2] http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-December/007730.html 

-j


--
Joe Andrieu
joe at andrieu.net
+1 (805) 705-8651

"An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered. An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered."
--G. K. Chesterton