- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:36:47 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> >>>> Neither RDFa, nor Microdata are extension mechanisms that allow >>>> adding "independently developed vocabularies" to HTML. >>> >>> Could you describe the criteria by which one can recognise a mechanism >>> for allowing the addition of independently developed vocabularies? I'm >>> baffled as to what the point of RDFa and Microdata would be if not >>> exactly that. >> >> It would be helpful to demonstrate *how* Ruby or ITS can be added using >> RDFa or Microdata. (examples would be sufficient) > > Your question doesn't make sense. Neither Ruby nor ITS are vocabularies > designed for RDFa or Microdata, and I'm sure you are well aware of that. > No-one has claimed that those specific vocabularies could be added using > RDFa or Microdata, so you seem to be making a strawman argument. You also > seem to be avoiding the question that Hixie actually asked. > > Do you consider the following to be "independently developed vocabularies", > as referred to by the charter or not? If not, why not? What is the criteria > you are using to determining what is or is not an independent vocabulary? > > * Microdata Vocabularies for vCard, vEvent and Licensing, as described > in the Microdata draft, and other Microformats that may be mapped to > Microdata by the Microformats community > http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/#mdvocabs > * The Creative Commons vocabulary for RDFa? > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa > * Dublin Core, FOAF, etc. > > Each of those could be included using either RDFa or Microdata, as they have > been designed for doing so. aside - FOAF was designed to work with RDF. It could be squeezed into Microdata but as I understand it, would look butt-ugly since property names would be things like http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/openid I'm not anti-Microdata btw. The item* terminology is quite nice, for example. But I wouldn't want to recommend people encode FOAF in it without deciding on a namespace URI abbreviation mechanism... Dan
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 09:37:20 UTC