[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0054 vcard email definition is inconsistent
stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Sep 14 15:58:35 UTC 2004
In article <20040914035935.GA25704 at dev.xaoza.net>, trejkaz at xaoza.net
> As one of my interests which I would be gathering various data like this for
> is FOAF,
> perhaps it makes sense to pull something like that in, as long as RDF stays
> the hell out.
> But does something like FOAF have enough data for what we need?
I posted in my weblog about this the other day:
I haven't looked at FOAF in about a year so I need to find out what it
supports now, and how we might add new properties to it (the FOAFsters
don't have a nice community standards process like we do in the JEP
series). I don't see how you can keep RDF out of it, since FOAF is
defined as an RDF vocabulary, but we would certainly use the RDF/XML
syntax and there are more RDF parsers now than there were 14 months ago.
That may not help small-footprint clients, but then again most of them
aren't implementing the full protocol suite either.
May the conversation continue...
More information about the Standards