On Oct 9, 2007 10:27 AM, Tom Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The microformats community works on the basis of having the data > embedded into the HTML. The RDF/SemWeb approach looks to have a > consistent data model, and then having as many representations as you > like of that data model. The data model for microformats differs based > on which tool you use (perhaps it's in a key-value-pair array, or an > object, or in an XML format) - even though it's getting the same > syntax (HTML or XHTML). With RDF, you have the same model (subject, > predicate, object) but with different syntaxes (XML, JSON, > (X)HTML-with-GRDDL, N3/N-Triples, TriX, the new JavaScript proposal > that's been circulating on the W3C semantic web mailing list, internal > memory models, SQL table etc.
Thats not quite right - the data model for any given microformat is clear. I think the 'common JSON representation' idea is a good one to help clarify this. > There is also value in the 'write the parser once' approach. Each new > microformat requires a new set of tools - Operator, Tails, X2V, > Optimus and so on, will have to be rewritten or extended to cover new > microformats. But RDF tools keep on reading RDF regardless of how many > new schemas people create. Imagine if we had to recreate the DOM, XML > parsers, XSLT, XPath, validators, XQuery and the rest of the XML stack > whenever anyone came up with a new XML-based specification. That's a little spurious, Tom - the issue is not parsing it, it's translating the parsed results into something that has meaning to a human. That you can express things in triple or in nested dicts and lists is one thing; knowing that one means a name and one means a phone number is another. _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
