Re: RDFa and Microformats

Hello.

Manu Sporny wrote:

[....]
> Here are the premises that I've seen you assert that are in error:
>   
I will answer this first.
> - Microformats have a generic parsing model
>   
They do its analogous to hcard  see:  
http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-parsing
combined with a few design patterns see: 
http://microformats.org/wiki/Main_Page#Design_Patterns

why am I telling you this Manu?
> - RDF and Microformats have incompatible data models
>   
No they Don't its RDF is Not the primary output of Microformats
> - Re-using RDFa attributes for Microformats will have acceptable
>   consequences
>   
Yes they will,  the use of @content from RDFa(which accepts data) is 
more suitable than using @title from HTML(which is text)...
> - Distributed innovation leads to anti-social behavior
>   
It does when it leads to websites "locking" themselves in to their own 
Vocabularies and Namespaces, you really think that wont happen? have you 
seen how many ad-hoc RDF vocabularies there are? and you don't think 
that pattern will repeat itself in RDFa. Your community seems to 
encourage it see:

http://digitalbazaar.com/media/audio
http://digitalbazaar.com/commerce

Digital Bazaar  didnt create either of those vocabularies the 
Microformats Community did,  by then refering to the Microformats 
Community as a HACK isn't what I would call cross community Development.
> - Namespaces and CURIEs are the same thing
>   

I dont know are they? you tell me, look at them from a non "Nerd" 
perspective, tell you what Ill ask my grandmother,  RDFa is something my 
grandmother would understand right!.

> - There already exists a data model that works "better" than RDF for the
>   purposes of Microformats
>   

Yes GRDDL. this way the human content is separated from the machine content.
> - @typeof is the same as @class
>   
No I you quote me wrong I said that @type of is the same as 
@class="vevent" they both mean RDF type  please keep up Manu...
> - Only Microformats are about what you can see on a web page and the
>   "take away web"
>   
Is it Not? since when has Microformats been about what you cant see on a 
web page? why do you think they stuff iso dates into titles? you could 
quite easily hide them?
> - RDFa has ignored the here and now
>   
It has...
> If you agree with any of the statements above, then you should spend
> some time re-thinking those premises before continuing because there is
> proof counter to what you are asserting.
>   
...
> Our goal should not be to -only- fix the Microformats accessibility
> issue, but to fix -all- Microformats parsing model issues and provide a
> mechanism to allow other non-Microformats approaches to exist. This
> isn't just about the Microformats community. I think we are close in
> accomplishing this and it is with this goal in mind that we should
> consider proposals such as re-using @content for Microformats.
>
> I'm sure you will agree that re-using @content in uFs doesn't actually
> address the real problem:
>
> Microformats do not have a robust parsing model.
>   
Not robust, no but when was that ever an Issue?
> -- manu
>
> [1]http://wiki.digitalbazaar.com/index.php?title=HAudio_RDFa&diff=2496&oldid=2352
> [2]http://rdfa.info/wiki/RDFa_Vocabularies
>
>   
Martin McEvoy

Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 18:37:25 UTC