Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
>
You are right, the use of tel as a plain datatype property is in partial
>
violation of the latest 2010 vcard ontology spec. However, we currently
>
recommend to stick with the Yahoo vcard representation pattern, since
>
that is necessary for augmented rendering of phone numbers in Yahoo.
Thanks Martin, that explains it.
But the previous version[1] of the spec, 9 years old, has the same usage
of vcard:tel as the current one. So basically Yahoo is at fault for
incorrectly interpreting the spec?
Anyway, this discrepancy should at least be mentioned somewhere in the
Quickstart guide, as a footnote perhaps.
>
PS: IMO, SPARQL queries must tolerate a bit of deviation from standards.
When a deviant pattern is widespread, yes, clients practically have to
do some workarounds. Similarly, when it's necessary to cope with widely
used but misbehaving clients (as is apparently the case here with
vcard:tel), workarounds on the server side are of course acceptable,
but, if at all possible, they should be used *together with* correct
markup, not in its stead.
For example, if one were to do it like this:
[] vcard:tel
"+1 234 56 78" ,
[ rdf:value "+1 234 56 78" ] .
would both Yahoo and spec-compliant consumers be happy?
[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-vcard-rdf-20010222/#5--
Vasiliy Faronov
