Re: WG: Schema.org considered helpful

OK, agreed, point taken. I take that back. I'm all for building bridges. 
The term "obsolete" could possibly be applied to the concept of "fixed 
introvert structures" (like MARC records). A microformat could be 
thought of as one of a number of possible views on a specific subject 
area, useful in specific circumstances. But there may be other 
microformats aimed at the same subject that are more useful in other 
contexts.  Let's see if microformats may bridge the gap.

PS: I still think Z39.50 works better and faster than SRU in most cases 
;-) And yes, it's obsolete in the same sense that I used that term for 
'records'

Lukas

On 19-6-2011 14:38, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 19 June 2011 11:44, Lukas Koster<l.koster@uva.nl>  wrote:
>> Just a few remarks:
>>
>> - The internet was created by the USA army
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#History), the World Wide Web came out
>> of the scientific/research world.
>
> ...btw the first Web browser, "World Wide Web" (later aka "Nexus") was
> perfectly capable of displaying images (and movies, sounds etc), by
> passing them on to the local operating system, NeXT. Mosaic's charm
> was inline images and running on a more consumer-accessible OS.
>
>> - As Rurik Greenall states: microformats are just another form of the
>> obsolete "record" concept. In linked data it's about networked information
>
> Oh, I disagree here! The idea of a record or document format will be
> useful forever. RDF and Linked Data basically give us dictionaries of
> terms (schemas/ontologies) but don't generally say anything about
> kinds of documents. This has left a bit of a gap: it's very nice
> having RDF vocab like 'shippingOrder', ... but in the XML tradition we
> had something more: we could express our expectations for what useful
> package of info we would find in any particular XML shipping order
> document. I don't think this is obsolete, but rather something we'll
> slowly rebuild on top of RDF, eg. DC's notion of application profile
> is in this area.
>
> And re 'microformats' and calling them 'obsolete' is not the nicest
> way of building bridges with that community. There has been a lot of
> pointlessly hostile 'microformats vs rdf' discussion over the last
> several years, I hope we can move away from that and see things more
> as explorations of different tradeoffs in design space. Many of the
> features of RDFa 1.1, for example, address concerns repeatedly raised
> by microformats and html5 people; and the design discussions around
> microformats.org/wiki/microformats-2 likewise bring it closer to the
> approach rdf takes. In this context throwing around language like
> 'obsolete' can do a lot more harm than good, in terms of the slow
> drift towards consensus.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> ps. I've been calling z39.50 obsolete since mid-90s but it hasn't gone
> away yet ;)

Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 12:59:28 UTC