#225 Upgrading vCard

closed
5
2014-07-08
2012-07-24
No

The controled annotations described in section 6 of the specification use an RDF version of vCard version 3, defined by
http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0# based on http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2426

vCard was upgraded shortly after we released the proposal for annotations, and version 4 has been around for the last 6 years. defined in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6350, it also exists in XML (xCard), But since we use the RDF version, we should use what is defined at:http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#

There are consequences on some elements:
* "Family" becomes "family-name"
* "Given" becomes "given-name"
* "EMAIL" becomes "email"
* "Orgname" becomes "organization-name"

Discussion

1 2 > >> (Page 1 of 2)
  • Chris Myers
    Chris Myers
    2012-07-25

    I am accepting this issue as valid.

     
  • Sarah Keating
    Sarah Keating
    2012-07-25

    I am accepting this issue as valid.

     
  • Lucian Smith
    Lucian Smith
    2012-07-25

    I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.

     
  • Michael Hucka
    Michael Hucka
    2012-07-26

    I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.

     
  • Michael Hucka
    Michael Hucka
    2013-09-14

    • status: open --> accepted
    • assigned_to: Nicolas Le Novère
    • Group: --> Accept-conformance-implications
     
  • Frank Bergmann
    Frank Bergmann
    2013-09-14

    I am accepting this issue as valid.

    I'm also worried about this, it will cause issues with software, and so it ought to hold for L3v2 / L2v5. It will cause a lot of issues for people not using libsbml, as then they need to figure out what vcard format to write out, based on the level / version. I would be happy to continue using the old vcard format, as I don't really see much benefit to our users.

     
  • I agree that we should probably not change that for L2V5. As for L3V2, I think we should aim at reusing existing standards as much as possible. The changes are not big, and it will be easy for software to support both forms, even if they do not use libsbml. However, it will make the direct use of SBML RDF annotation in semantic web context easier. What about adding the new construct and deprecating the old ones? So people should use the new ones, but the old ones are still valid.

     
    • Michael Hucka
      Michael Hucka
      2013-09-16

      I like that solution: deprecate the old format but still accept it.

       
  • Lucian Smith
    Lucian Smith
    2014-06-12

    • status: accepted --> open
     
1 2 > >> (Page 1 of 2)