[Kolab-devel] Missing implementation for xcard properties
mollekopf at kolabsys.com
Fri Mar 16 11:23:41 CET 2012
On Friday 16 March 2012 08.21:33 Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> On 2012-03-15 23:57, Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 March 2012 17.16:00 Thomas Brüderli wrote:
> >> And which property of the affiliation block would then contain the
> >> profession? Role? Title? None of the existing ones seems appropriate
> >> to me.
> > It's role. As CCITT.X520.1988 states for Business Category (which is
> > what the vcard role is based on):
> > "The Business Category attribute type specifies information
> > concerning the
> > occupation of some common objects, e.g. people."
> > The title is the specific position within the organization, not the
> > more
> > general profession.
> So I'd be;
> - category business
> - title: Systems Architect
> - role: contractor
> is that right?
We only have role and title.
While looking at that stuff again, I noticed that there might be a bug in the
vCard RFC though:
The role is according to vCard:
"To specify the function or part played in a particular situation by the
object the vCard represents."
Which isn't the same as X520s:
"The Business Category attribute type specifies information concerning the
occupation of some common objects, e.g. people."
IMO, X520 describes the property as profession, where vCard clearly uses is as
a specific role within an organization, underlined by vCards example
The title is according to vCard:
"To specify the position or job of the object the vCard represents."
And in X520:
"The Title attribute type specifies the designated position or function of the
object within an organization."
Here vCard seems to refer to a more generic profession, while X520 refers to a
specific role. Here vCards example is: "TITLE:Research Scientist"
So I think the two X520 references have been mixed up.
It should be:
- vCard:role based on X520:Title => A specific role within an organization =>
- vCard:title based on X520:Business Category => A profession, not strictily
related to an organization. => "Computer Scientist"
If my analysis is correct, I would add an Erratum to the RFC.
I'm not completely sure if it makes sense to have the title inside the
organization group, or if we should take it out of the organization, as it is
not strictly related to a single organization.
I have it in there atm. because a contact may have multiple professions, but
only one of them is relevant to an organization. That could lead to
duplication though. So I'd suggest having the title (aka profession) separate
from the organization group.
As a summary that would leave us with:
> Kind regards,
> Jeroen van Meeuwen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://www.intevation.de/pipermail/kolab-devel/attachments/20120316/3e35fc88/attachment.bin
More information about the Kolab-devel