 |
 |
Hi all, I've finally got round to reading all your vCard posts :-} As Phil pointed out problems relating to the use of vCard are really a LOM issue, as LOM mandates the use of vCard. However as Phil also pointed out, UK LOM Core does aim to advise the UK FE/HE community on implementing the LOM to facilitate interoperability so we need to provide clear and coherent guidelines. I don't think I can really add anything to the debate, particularly as Phil, Chris, Andy and Pete clearly know more about implementing vCard than I do. Phil's suggestion below seems like a good compromise and I would be happy to add this to the UK LOM Core unless there are any further suggestions. All the best and keep the comments coming! Lorna On 14 Jul 2004, at 11:40, Phil Barker wrote: > Andy Powell wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Phil Barker wrote: >> >> >>> Phil Barker wrote: > ... >>> Well, I thought that the only advantage of using vCards was that >>> they were >>> widely used for applications other than the LOM, and so there's a >>> chance of >>> picking up a parser written for a more generic application and >>> plugging it >>> into your LOM application. Using a LOM-specific profile can only >>> reduce the >>> likelihood of this happening. >> >> >> Well I'd be happy to live with the verbosity of... >> >> <![CDATA[BEGIN:VCARD >> FN:WH Smith >> N:;;WH Smith >> ORG:WH Smith >> NOTE:objectClass\: organization >> VERSION:3.0 >> END:VCARD]]> >> >> if that's the general view. > > OK, we'll see if anyone objects to the extra few lines. > > > >> However, I don't think this is necessary and >> I find it hard to believe that there are vCard parsers out there that >> will >> reject vCards because they have missing mandatory fields - because, >> as in >> the current discussion about the UK LOM Core, I suspect that most >> people >> don't write software that interprets 'mandatory' as really meaning >> 'mandatory'! :-). If you do, you'll end up throwing too much away. >> > > Given the state of my Palm address book after exchanging vCards with > Mozilla, I wish they were stricter. > > After some consideration of Chris's original message, I think I would > be > happier with > <![CDATA[BEGIN:VCARD > FN:None > N:None > ORG:WH Smith > NOTE:objectClass\: organization > VERSION:3.0 > END:VCARD]]> > > Since I think Chris's suggestion mis-uses both N's additional names > and FN, > and as Andy has pointed out there's no need to put incorrect > information > there. I'm not sure "None", is the right value, but is the one > recommended > in CanCore, and I don't see much point in choosing a more appropriate > term > (such as "not applicable") just to ignore it. > > Phil > > -- > Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser > ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences > Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University, > Edinburgh, EH14 4AS > Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327 > Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/ > > -- Lorna M. Campbell Assistant Director Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards (CETIS) Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde +44 (0)141 548 3072 http://www.cetis.ac.uk/