On 11/24/07 9:25 PM, "Tatsuya Noyori" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to suggest microschema to improve interoperability of > microformats. Hi Tatsuya, There are two general areas of problems that your suggestion. The first is, what is the real world interoperability problem that you are trying to solve? Do you have test cases that have been demonstrated to fail in specific implementations? Do you have analysis that demonstrates that such problems stem from a lack of an explicit typed schema? Lacking that, it is not logical to conclude that a schema (micro or otherwise) would help improve interoperability. The second problem is that in practice, explicit schemas do not represent all (often not even most) of the semantics of a specific format. For example, the HTML4 DTDs contain a mere fraction of the constraints and semantics expressed by the HTML4 specification. A validator that only checks the rules expressed in the HTML DTD will fail to check numerous assertions and requirements made in the specification itself. This is the schema incompleteness problem. In short, having a set of rules from a framework (such as those expressed by a schema like a DTD) is not only in practice insufficient, but serves to give a false sense of completeness of description. Thus with microformats we eschew trying to solve the general schema problem (others are trying much harder for much longer on that problem - e.g. XML Schema etc., and failing in practice - i.e. usage on the Web) for simple dictionaries instead. There has been some value demonstrated in some scenarios (e.g. reading microformats into an RDF store, either directly or thru a GRDDL transform) to at least disambiguate the use of vocabulary, and back the terms used with URLs. Thus we have XMDP (XHTML Meta Data Profiles) which is sufficient to define terms and provide a URL for each. Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
