On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Thomas Loertsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's where things come together for me: technically I need the > extensibility of RDFa, vocabulary-wise I need the community process > established by microformats.org. So why not develop a vocabulary and two > serializations in parallel? An RDFa-serialization isn't much work to do, the > hard part is the vocabulary and that's the same for both serializations, > RDFa and microformat. Basically it would just mean that we give the > RDFa-serialization a nice home on the web, side by side with the > microformat-serialization, improving interoperabilty and reuse. >
I'm not sure that an RDFa serialization is something that needs endorsement or hosting by microformats.org. Once hRecipe is formalised, RDF/RDFa-based work that uses the hRecipe vocabulary needs no input from microformats.org. The syntax for the RDFa is derived simply from the RDF/OWL model - there's nothing there that needs deciding on. And, well, if you have a microformat, it seems pointless to publish RDFa - just create a GRDDL profile describing the transformation of hRecipe into RDF/XML and use that (HTML 5 @profile concerns aside). You do raise an important point though: the RDF world needs a microformats.org-style development community. That was the intention I had behind setting up GetSemantic, and I think the creation of such a community is the intention behind VoCamp. At VoCampOxford, we discussed the problem of the lack of a microformats-style venue for discussion and creation of RDF vocabularies, and this is an active problem that I think needs solving. We can't just tack this on to microformats - it needs to be separate. Such a group would, of course, tell people to use microformats where appropriate. Here's how you (or whoever else is interested) should probably proceed: when hRecipe reaches a point of maturity, sit down and properly RDFize it - work out the classes and the properties involved, and figure out how they map both ways from the RDF to the microformat. Draft that up as an OWL ontology, put a draft version up in Notation3 format on the web and solicit comments. You don't have to specify an RDFa mapping, because that's implicit - if you understand RDFa, and you understand the vocabulary, the RDFa syntax that you would use becomes obvious. Read http://vocamp.org/wiki/Best_Practices And if you've got questions, ask on irc.freenode.net #swig Sorry to regular mf-discuss readers for that extended diversion into RDF-land. Back to your regular scheduled programming. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
