On 1/8/08 6:47 AM, "Christopher St John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 8:14 PM, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> The distinction of properties, values, types, schema etc. are well >> documented computer science terms. >> > > Actually, in knowledge representation terms they're > usually not. To get around the "what's meta" problem > people generally just pick a level that seems reasonable > to the problem at hand and go ahead knowing that other > choices might have been equally valid. (Computer geeks > can think Java Reflection or the Lisp MOP. When is a > type actually data? Just don't go there :-) ) > > In HTML for example, the "sematic level" of the various > tags varies quite a bit: <p> is very generic, <cite> > very specific, so denying the question isn't helpful to > those trying to write a new format (or understand the > logic behind existing formats) > > I generally agree that the discussion of meta-levels can > be unproductive, but there are choices to be made. A > better answer to the question about data in class > attributes might be: > > "Yes, it's data, and there are some fairly deep > questions about what is appropriate and what is not. We > tried to cut through the Gordian knot by simply avoiding > the deep questions. When possible, names are just stolen > from existing standards (hCard). Otherwise, authors have > just used intuition to make some reasonable choices. > There is no hard and fast rule. Different microformats > have very different sorts of "stuff" in the class > attribute (just compare xoxo to hReview), the key is to > make the "stuff" appropriate to the task at hand. If you > want to author a new microformat, you're going to need > to make some choices and experience has shown the > community (and lots of research) will help you with the > appropriateness of your vocabulary and its 'semantic > level'. There are also guidelines on the wiki that have > proven useful in other efforts. Long discussions of the > what counts as meta often end badly, so don't worry > about it too much. Instead, concentrate on existing > practice and trust the community to help with judgement > calls." This is a much better answer. Christopher, perhaps you could consider adding this to the FAQ in answer to to Katrina's question: "What sort of meta-data is acceptable and what others aren't?"[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/faq [1] http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2008-January/01127 8.html >> One way to >> learn more about such distinctions is to pick up a book or two on computer >> science and data structure and learn about them. >> > > I don't personally mind a little heat in my technical > discussions, but this is exactly the sort of remark Andy > was banned for, and it's unfair to hit a person who > can't hit back. Hitting back is still hitting. It doesn't make it right. Instead, the right thing to do is to simply call it out (as you did). and... On 1/8/08 12:08 AM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> One way to >> learn more about such distinctions is to pick up a book or two on computer >> science and data structure and learn about them. > > Yes; they told me that a few years before they awarded me my degree in > the subject. My bad for making the assumption that you didn't have a computer science degree (unfortunately another example of the logical flaw previously noted). > Your "snarky" comment, against your own policy, also adds little to the > debate. Though not intended as snarky, upon re-reading I can see how it could have been interpreted that way. Thus, apologies, comment retracted. Based on this feedback I will refrain from posting on microformats mailing lists and making wiki edits (other than admin duties of blocking/reverting spammers) for 24 hours. Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
