Subject: [VCARDDAV] Related type for partner/spouse (was I-D Action:draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-07.txt)

From: Sly Gryphon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:59:02 +1000

The RELATED property, defined in section 7.6.6 of the draft includes
several types.

Whilst "parent" and "child" are including, strangely the value
"partner"/"spouse" is missing.

Suggest adding to the list of values:

  * "partner" means that the related individual is recognised as the
partner, spouse, or similar relation of the individual.

Note that it is intended to represent anyone recognised as a "partner",
and not necessarily restricted only to marriage.

Sly Gryphon

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:50:56 -0400

> "partner"/"spouse" is missing.

I clearly remember discussing "partner" at IETF 74. The group felt that the
meaning of this term is so loosely defined that it could even create
misunderstandings. Examples:

- Business partner.
- Life partner (often a euphemism for spouse in homosexual couples).
- Tennis partner.

So "partner" is out.

At IETF 74 I proposed to add "friend" and "spouse". But the minutes say that
there was consensus on what is currently in the draft. I don't remember why
these two were rejected. We have the audio here though:
ftp://videolab.uoregon.edu/pub/videolab/media/ietf74/ietf74-continental_3-wed-pm.mp3

Simon
-- 
STUN/TURN server    --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
Interplanetary news --> http://reeves.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0           --> http://www.vcarddav.org

---

From: Markus Lorenz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:59:09 +0200

> and not necessarily restricted only to marriage.

There has already been a discussion on additional RELATED properties,
starting here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav/current/msg00787.html

Markus

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:31:40 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, Markus Lorenz
<[email-masked]> writes

>starting here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav/current/ms
>g00787.html

There was, and I've just read through it all.

While its interesting, it doesn't seem to have reached any conclusions.

One of the latter posts asked about standards for Genealogy. I have been
involved in some research:

  <http://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=genealogy-examples&oldid=33023>

  (aka <http://bit.ly/SVa4t>)

  <http://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=genealogy-formats&oldid=23446>

  (aka <http://bit.ly/3LEZgl>)

and brainstorming:

  <http://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=genealogy-brainstorming&oldid=32885>

  (aka <http://bit.ly/3DlGBi>)

for a genealogy microformat. As the second of those pages states,

        GEDCOM has become pretty much the defacto standard for sharing
        data between genealogy systems.

GEDCOM is described at, and its standards linked to from:

  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEDCOM>

-- 
Andy Mabbett