Closed jakubklimek closed 9 months ago
Some background information and questions to get the request correct.
vcard:Card and vcard:Kind are equivalent classes. See statement in vCard:
The vCard class is equivalent to the new Kind class, which is the parent for the four explicit types of vCards (Individual, Organization, Location, Group)
The usage note for Kind in DCAT-AP is the following:
Note that the class Kind is the parent class for the four explicit types of vCards (Individual, Organization, Location, Group).
Questions to this issue:
Does the usage note enforce the usage of one of the subclasses? It seems that it is more a repetition of the text in the VCard vocabulary.
Is it the request to be more precise on the actual kind? Because so far I do not see that from the usage note. In that case, we also should consider a similar statement for Agent.
The current practice in portals and use of this information is without the "kind" connotation: Next to a Dataset (or other Resources) there will be a box with "contact details" but that does seldom show Contact Person/Organisation for more information. It will be just the email/phone details. So my question: is this distinction in the current practice for publishers and portals important? Or is it simply ignored?
Proposal to resolution:
Actually, vcard:VCard
is the equivalent class, vcard:Card
does not exist.
I read the usage note in a way which makes vcard:Kind
abstract, i.e. not to be used explicitly. Therefore, in Czechia, we ask for name and e-mail address of the contact points, and we assume it is a vcard:Organization
. We do not use any other of the kinds and I presume that even if we did, no one would treat the contact points differently.
I would therefore expect the example to use one of the explicit classes.
I am fine to change the example. The abstract versus concrete I am not so sure how the community sees it. Is it ok we promote this to DCAT-AP level instead of HVD only?
@bertvannuffelen I did not find any reference saying that vcard:Kind
is abstract. I must have imagined it then. Therefore, I am fine with the examples using both vcard:Kind
and vcard:VCard
, just not the currently used vcard:Card
, which does not exist.
Please be informed of the SEMIC proposition related to issue #283.
SEMIC proposition: With regard to this issue we do not make any explicit recommendation.
We invite you to comment your approval of, or engage in discussions regarding this proposition.
In some examples such as this one,
vcard:Card
is used incorrectly as the class for contact point entities. According to DCAT-AP, subclasses ofvcard:Kind
should be used andvcard:Card
is not one of them.