Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate specification

On Oct 15, 2009, at 16:39, Shelley Powers wrote:
> The HTML+RDFa folks have voluntarily put this specification into a  
> separate document, so it doesn't increase the size of the HTML5  
> spec--that people don't have to wade through the spec, just to find  
> out how to use the basic HTML markup.

The size of the HTML5 spec doesn't bother me.

> Henri, I don't remember you ever having an interest in metadata. In  
> fact, I've always had the impression from you that you think it's  
> over rated.

Indeed. Working on metadata at the National Archives Service (of  
Finland) made me a non-believer.

Subsequently elsewhere, I was assigned to a death march metadata  
project, which was like a caricature of overmodeling the domain  
without asking if the benefit of the meticulous metadata was ever  
going to justify the cost of developing the system let alone getting  
people to input the metadata. I can see the same pattern in Semantic  
Web evangelism from time to time.

> Forget RDFa for the moment: what is it about Microdata that's  
> important to you, personally?


I can see that there's demand for addressing the use cases that  
Microdata and RDFa address even though those use cases aren't my  
primary interest. I care about what's good for the Web and how  
solutions impact software that I work on. When I see that the use  
cases are going to be addressed even if addressing them isn't what I'd  
personally focus on, I prefer them to be addressed in a way that's  
better for the Web and doesn't have an adverse impact on the software  
I work on. Microdata addresses the concerns I've raised about  
Microformats and RDFa over the years.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 07:00:40 UTC