[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0054 vcard email definition is inconsistent

Peter Saint-Andre 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 mailing list