HVD: Incorrect usage of vCard for contact points in examples

[jakubklimek]

In some examples such as this one, vcard:Card is used incorrectly as the class for contact point entities. According to DCAT-AP, subclasses of vcard:Kind should be used and vcard:Card is not one of them.

[bertvannuffelen]

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:

• On the example, indeed it is more appropriate to use vcard:Kind.

[jakubklimek]

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.

[bertvannuffelen]

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?

[jakubklimek]

@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.

[PwC-Arthur]

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.