Hi all
Ciaran McNulty wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One more thing: I am unsure about the plural naming convention I suggested.
[...]
There's very little utility in having the field names reflect their
plurality - a parser needs to know how to parse each field separately
anyhow, for most real-world applications. Keeping vCard names is more
useful than changing them for very little gain.
+1 ...keeping the naming the same (minus punctuation fixes for .js
syntax) makes sense.
I'm happy to see this discussion, as it helps decouple the implicit
abstract data-model of Microformats from the specifics of their use as
an HTML notation. This will make interop with FOAF/RDF system easier for
all of us, I'm sure. For going from FOAF to Microformats btw, I'm
thinking to add annotations into the FOAF schema that indicate the best
corresponding Microformat term. More on that next week, hopefully.
For another JSON representation of Microformat (and FOAF/RDF) data,
don't forget the Google Social Graph API:
http://code.google.com/apis/socialgraph/docs/
Also (while we're cataloguing JSON idioms for this stuff) any mapping of
Microformats into RDF (eg. using GRDDL) will allow it so show up using
the SPARQL resultset format, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-json-res/ ... this is best thought of by
analogy with SQL: it captures tables of query results, with records/rows
and named columns for fields. So the basic JSON structure there remains
the same, regardless of which domain vocabulary is being used.
I'm not advocating for either here, just circulating related work...
All the best,
Dan
--
http://danbri.org/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
