Re: RDFa and Microformats

Hello Ben,

Ben Adida wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Wow, this thread has certainly flourished.
>   
It has now you have joined. ;-)
> Okay, first things first: let's keep the personal attacks and innuendos
> out, please. We've managed to keep a very cordial mood here on this
> list, and I'd like to keep it that way. 
Ok I'll agree to that.... oh but then again I have already read this 
email so I will continue in a similar tone..
> We welcome all comments and
> disagreements, even strong disagreements, 
Remember you said that Ben not me.....
> but let's not start implying
> that such-and-such content was "ripped" from somewhere else (when the
> author trail is obvious),

Who's trail did you follow?

>  or making comparisons to the Borg (which
> strikes me as very close to Godwin's Law.)
>   
No Not at all in plain terms "resistance is futile" , well actually 
Maybe If you Mean....

"as a thread goes on, the chances of somebody or something being 
compared to a Nazi approach one"

Godwin's Law  used to apply to long pointless discussions on Usenet 
That's a good comparison Ben I like it.. Who are you referring to. Not 
the W3C?.
> Regarding individual participation: I agree that it would be nice for
> individuals to participate more easily. I will communicate this feedback
> to the W3C team.
>   
Don't, No thanks Not on my behalf  thanks anyway...
> I want to highlight a note that Mark sent:
>
>   
>> If we have this:
>>
>>   <span
>>     class="p1" content="v1"
>>     property="p2">v2</span>
>>
>> How does the RDFa parser know that @content was added for use in a
>> Microformat, rather than for use in RDFa?
>>
>> You can argue that you wouldn't do this, and that you'd advise people
>> to add extra elements to make things clear, but how do you absolutely
>> ensure against it?
>>
>> This kind of pollution is exactly the problem that Microformats has
>> been unable to solve, and exactly the kind of problem that we put a
>> lot of energy into solving in RDFa.
>>     
>
> I could not have said it better.
>   
Why should you Ben? Mark didn't say it to me,  unless by my silence on a 
matter means? I don't understand maybe?, or  possibly I don't care?

see: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/0072.html 


Please Keep up Ben don't just read the last email...
> RDFa has introduced certain attributes specifically for the embedding of
> RDF in XHTML. Those attributes trigger the generation of RDF triples, as
> per the RDFa rules. They should not be used for other purposes. A
> publisher who uses RDFa attributes should expect the corresponding
> triples, as specified by RDFa, to be implied. Always.
>   
...
> The reason why that is is simple: we want well-formed RDFa-in-XHTML
> snippets to mean the same thing, no matter where they appear. We want
> RDFa parsers to be consistent and always vocabulary-independent. These
> were core design goals when we started, and they haven't changed.
>
> The word "overloading" is incorrect, and the word "squatting" is too
> nice, in my opinion. 
....
> I would consider these alternative proposal more of
> an *abuse* of RDFa attributes. 
Sigh! Lock me Up....
> By using them in ways that are
> inconsistent with RDFa, you would be diluting our efforts at a single
> metadata syntax for HTML, effectively weakening the meaning of other
> folks who want to use RDFa consistently.
>   
....
> That's bad practice, and we would certainly speak out strongly against
> it, much like many accessibility folks spoke out strongly against the
> abuse of @title.
>   
Multiple abuser now I am Guilty of @title abuse.....no I'm not its 
<abbr></abbr> abuse I don't know who on earth told you it was about the 
@title attribute. I wish you guys would give that one up.

You still  have not understood a thing about this discussion have you?

Its Now a two fold Issue...

If you GRDDL Microformats and RDFa together, Microformats Produce extra 
triples to the graph, ones that you probably didn't intend, particularly 
in the case of  hCard and hCalendar how do I avoid this..

And Why Cant I use one element from RDFa @content in Microformats, When 
the RDFa Community thinks that Its OK to port an ENTIRE Microformat to 
RDFa which is a combination of Syntax and Vocabulary, (In case you are 
wandering What Syntax I mean Scope)  how does that work in something 
that is just about Syntax? RDFa.

http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio

You say you Followed a Paper trail? I will correct you, You followed ONE 
paper trail, out of thirty or more people, Individuals, that actually 
contributed to the hAudio Proposal here are some names, you might know a 
few. not including myself...

" Alexandre Van De Sande , Michael Johnson, Dave Longley, Brian Suda, 
Ben Wiley Sittler, Scott Reynen, Frances Berriman, James Craig, David 
Janes, Andy Mabbett, Danny Ayers, Rudy Desjardins, Edward O'Connor, Ryan 
King, Chris Griego, Brad Hafichuk, Tantek Çelik, Colin Barrett, Joe 
Andrieu, Michael Smethurst,  Chris Newell, Julian Stahnke, Justin 
Maxwell, Paul Wilkins and David I. Lehn."

The thing that has really started bugging about all this, Is the 
Process, which I have tried to follow - The Microformats Process - In 
the case of hAudio is in Real Danger of Failing because Manu, took it 
upon himself  to instead of finding out how hAudio could be marked up in 
RDFa, He declared  that the hAudio RDFa specification is now more useful 
than the hAudio Microformat
specification. and the Microformats community is making it difficult to 
keep them in sync, WTF!

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0017.html

That Made me doubtful of his motives.

The reason Why I mentioned All those names above, Is because Manu Failed 
them. because being the Editor of a Microformat is not the same as being 
an Editor at the W3C, he is speaking for Many voices and Is supposed to 
oversee the "Microformats Process" to ensure consistency and reasonable 
debate and that the Microformats Process is adhered to, and then 
Document it, Just to add to that, Anyone can be an EDITOR, providing 
they have had some active input in the format and are prepared to roll 
there sleeves up and get "stuck in" ,  this responsibility does NOT 
convey Ownership or Collaboration with Third party projects of any kind.

I hope I made that Clear..
> So, to reinforce what Mark said extremely well: we will continue to find
> ways to simplify the expression of RDFa, but always with a consistent
> parsing model and a consistent meaning for all attributes.
>
>   
I hope you Do, But I doubt that some how....
> Feedback on this is welcome, of course, but seeing as how this has been
> a consistent principle of RDFa for the last 3-4 years, through Last
> Call, CR, and now PR, I doubt that we would give serious consideration
> to proposals that so substantially weaken RDFa.
>   
How about Its already been done without RDFa... and why bother teaching 
your grandmother it at all.
> -Ben
>   
Best Wishes


-Martin

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2008 01:37:02 UTC