Re: [uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:43:49 +0200, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: citePhoto span class=titleSiesta Lake/span by span class=fn photographyAnsel Adams/span./cite The Photo there isn't machine-readable. I think it should be made it machine-readable with span class=mediaphoto/span or span class=citation photo -- I'm ambivalent about which is best between the two. The first only works if everyone is writing captions in English, the latter works in all languages. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
[uf-discuss] Re: Citation format straw proposal on the wiki
=iso-8859-1 On 3/29/06, Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then we have properties that are specific to books/journals Pages Volume If these properties are present, then we know that this item is probably not say.. a photo or a painting, and contains all the properties which allow it to be pased the same whether it's a book or a journal. Combine it with hCite and suddenly we have bookCite I just want to point out that ambiguity might not be bad for determining what an item isn't, but it's not good practice for determining what an item is. I am currently going through our 705k marc records trying to determine what each record actually is representing and if it's not explicitly set (which is sadly really only done with conference proceedings and journals) it becomes a guessing game as what these things really are. In my case, I can probably actually find the thing and determine what it is (although that won't scale, obviously), but a citation I might find on the web won't afford me that. Explicitly stating what an item is a much sounder approach. -Ross. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/ attachments/20060330/b9117640/attachment-0001.htm -- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:51:12 +0100 From: Nick Swan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [uf-discuss] attention microformat To: microformats-discuss@microformats.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hi all, first message to the emailing list after attending the microformats and structured blogging session with Marc Canter and Tantek at Mix06. I'm interested in using the attention microformat for an application I'm working on, and so am seeking clarification as to where this format currently is. Checking the wiki entries on the microformat page it seems as though initial discussions began, but didn't get much further: http://microformats.org/wiki/attention Checking on the Technorati wiki there is some more information and even a sample in microformat: http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/attentionxml sample: http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/AttentionSample Is this the format that people are currently using who are working on attention applications? We are keen to use a standard format so to allow people to move their attention data from one service to another, so would really appreciate any pointers Many thanks Nick Swan -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/ attachments/20060330/764e5cdd/attachment-0001.htm -- Message: 5 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:12:49 -0600 From: Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki To: Microformats Discuss microformats-discuss@microformats.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:15 PM, Ross Singer wrote: Explicitly stating what an item is a much sounder approach. I agree. What if I want to cite a photograph and all I know about it is the photographer's name and the title of the photograph? Peace, Scott -- Message: 6 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:40:05 -0500 From: C. Hudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] seeking clarification w/r/to hCard and RFCs 2425/2426 To: Microformats Discuss microformats-discuss@microformats.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 3/29/06, Kevin Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you mean services and protocols in the computing sense? If so you should look into the DNS-SD specification for service discovery, as this is a deployed and working one that builds on DNS. That's what I've just been looking at. :) I'm experimenting with it and trying to determine where a good hand-off between the zeroconf layer and a web layer might be for suites of related (but functionally distinct) services mostly delivered over HTTP. Since DNS-level record keeping is rather more heavyweight than registering and updating web resources, I'm thinking a certain amount of restraint and stability on the DNS[-SD] side and more flexibility on the web side might be best. ...which led to wondering what the best way to mark up directories of computing services and protocols in [X]HTML might be. -- Message: 7 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 05:48:55 -0800 (PST) From: Tim White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki To: Microformats Discuss microformats-discuss@microformats.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 --- Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:15 PM, Ross Singer wrote: Explicitly stating
Re: [uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki
On 3/30/06, Tim White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) Adapted to current behaviors and usage patterns. Microformats are suppose to be modeled on what people are currently doing (80/20) on the web. I think of it in terms of the Everyman/woman. Capturing metadata isn't what is happening by the 80. Look at the examples collected on the wiki, very little metadata if any. (http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-examples -- look to the Implied Schema section) Earlier in this thread I stated that many of these examples are exactly the opposite of what we're trying to do -- they violate the useful and precise distinction indicated on the cite-brainstorming page between content at hand and what's referenced by but external to what's at hand in that they represent the former, not the latter. I'll repeat my offer to augment or replace those with examples of cited references from a variety of extremely heavily-used-worldwide online publications. You will find even less markup there, which makes your point much stronger yet much less convincing. The library community (such as it is... there are about three of us in here, so far as I can tell) isn't after something to replace the existing standards. We simply want to help ensure that the insight professed by this statement: Better to leverage all the hard work that others have done before you, than to go off as a solo cowboy inventor, and waste time repeating all their mistakes. ...needn't be proven accurate yet again here. And, to try to ensure that hCite can usefully interact with the infrastructure we've built. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki
--- Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 30, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Tim White wrote: The Photo there isn't machine-readable. I think it should be made it machine-readable with span class=mediaphoto/span or span class=citation photo -- I'm ambivalent about which is best between the two. I agree your first example, I almost marked up the example the same way. --- Bruce D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/30/06, Tim White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Humans first, machines second. At what point does this become mere dogma? It sounds like what you're advocating in fact suggests human first, who cares about machines; as if the one can't support the other in any case. Not at all. Obviously machines need something to parse, that's why I'd vote for the span class=mediaphoto|book|etc/span. As for dogma, I'm just trying to stick to the microformat principles. I once held a position that typing introduced more problems than it solved, but I've changed my mind. If we were to vote on this, I'd give a big +1 to including typing information. I certainly think that type should be allowed by the format, but not required. Why not use CSS to style types in particular ways, or otherwise provide more sublte cues? That's exactly what I'd do. And I'll grant you that adding a type into the title makes this much easier to do. That's actually the main reason I once advocated including type. 2) Adapted to current behaviors and usage patterns. Microformats are suppose to be modeled on what people are currently doing (80/20) on the web. I think of it in terms of the Everyman/woman. Everyman/woman has no idea what microformats are. I think things like marc records, OpenURL, Bibtex, etc. are actually *too* specific for MF. ??? I see it quite the other way around of course. If you just want something some generic weblog author can use to markup a book, and you reject the idea of doing something more, then I have no interest in this discussion I'm afraid; you'd be designing for a narrow community. The examples that Alf and Mike posted are perfectably reasonable compromises between simplicity and expressiveness. I think we actually agree more than disagree here. Alf's example was very good. I think we need a simple core MF that generic weblog authors can use. But also that the core MF could be modified by, say, library science people to include more complete information. In short, I'd like to be able to talk about a book on my blog: I am reading cite class=hcitation titleOperating Manual for Spaceship Earth/cite ... AND, be able to cite it at the end of a longer piece: cite class=hcitation span class=vcardspan class=author fnR. Buckminster Fuller/span/span. span class=titleOperating Manual for Spaceship Earth/span. span class=publisherPocket Book/span, abbr class=dtpublished title=19701970/abbr. span class=pages127 pages/span. ISBN: span class=isbn671-78046-8/span. /cite Make sense? ~ Tim a href=http://www.tjameswhite.com;www.tjameswhite.com/a a href=http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesamp;id=12227amp;t=1;Get Firefox!/a __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki
On 3/30/06, Tim White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [... snip ...] In short, I'd like to be able to talk about a book on my blog: I am reading cite class=hcitation titleOperating Manual for Spaceship Earth/cite ... AND, be able to cite it at the end of a longer piece: cite class=hcitation span class=vcardspan class=author fnR. Buckminster Fuller/span/span. span class=titleOperating Manual for Spaceship Earth/span. span class=publisherPocket Book/span, abbr class=dtpublished title=19701970/abbr. span class=pages127 pages/span. ISBN: span class=isbn671-78046-8/span. /cite Make sense? Yup :-) Although, to clarify, your distinction above is really between an in-text citation, and a full bibliographic reference. Bruce ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Hi Joe, Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much feedback from everybody here, of course)? This is actually an FAQ, and a fairly tricky one at that, since it is isomorphic to the problem of a general purpose parser. I believe Tantek has declared that discussion off-topic for this list, since it has the potential to be a never-ending rathole. However, I can't find such a statement on the FAQ: http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Basic_Microformat_Questions Tantek, is that in fact the policy, and is it documented somewhere? That said, there are a few of us crazy enough to want to try, which I'm open to doing off-list if you're interested... -- Ernie P. On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: Hi All! I've been lurking for a while and truly appreciate all of the great work going into microformats right now! I saw a message on the Structured Blogging mailing list that got me thinking about a format-of-formats... a standard way to describe a format. My thoughts are here: http://www.joereger.com/entry-logid7-eventid5003-Structured- Blogging-FormatofFormats.log As I posted, I realized that I haven't checked in with Tantek and others regarding the concept of a format-of-formats. I've seen a lot of Atom/RDF used. I was a proponent of XML Schema a while back. I've been dabbling with Xforms. XUL is out there. My basic position is that we should be able to provide a common format for the description of a microformat. By creating a standard to describe the formats we free toolmakers to create an implementation and then be done with it. Once we have support from WordPress, MT, Drupal, LJ, etc then we can spawn microformats more quickly, requiring little or no development on the toolmaker part. Toolmakers will compete by providing advanced features in their implementation (like CSS override hooks, see blog post). Aggregators like Technorati/PubSub will be able to build advanced functionality on top of specific formats and will compete at that level. For example, Technorati may create Technorati Music while PubSub may create PubSub Movies... their investment differentiates and end-users win. Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much feedback from everybody here, of course)? Thanks for getting me up to speed! Keep up the great work! Best, Joe Reger ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] attention microformat
I think this discussion stalled because it was hard to bake the micro of microformats into attention data... I could be wrong -- but since no one else responded, just thought I'd chime in that I'm not sure any more work has been done recently on that format -- and I'm not clear who, if anyone, is driving it anymore. Chris On 3/30/06, Nick Swan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, first message to the emailing list after attending the microformats and structured blogging session with Marc Canter and Tantek at Mix06. I'm interested in using the attention microformat for an application I'm working on, and so am seeking clarification as to where this format currently is. Checking the wiki entries on the microformat page it seems as though initial discussions began, but didn't get much further: http://microformats.org/wiki/attention Checking on the Technorati wiki there is some more information and even a sample in microformat: http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/attentionxml sample: http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/AttentionSample Is this the format that people are currently using who are working on attention applications? We are keen to use a standard format so to allow people to move their attention data from one service to another, so would really appreciate any pointers Many thanks Nick Swan ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] attention microformat
Chris is right. The attention.xml effort has been a bit stalled. It had initially started as a Technorati initiative, but we'd like to move it to microformats.org. However, as we were moving it, we realized that it actually doesn't follow many of the microformats principles. So, discussion has started about how to make it more 'microformat-y'. -ryan On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Chris Messina wrote: I think this discussion stalled because it was hard to bake the micro of microformats into attention data... I could be wrong -- but since no one else responded, just thought I'd chime in that I'm not sure any more work has been done recently on that format -- and I'm not clear who, if anyone, is driving it anymore. Chris On 3/30/06, Nick Swan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, first message to the emailing list after attending the microformats and structured blogging session with Marc Canter and Tantek at Mix06. I'm interested in using the attention microformat for an application I'm working on, and so am seeking clarification as to where this format currently is. Checking the wiki entries on the microformat page it seems as though initial discussions began, but didn't get much further: http://microformats.org/wiki/attention Checking on the Technorati wiki there is some more information and even a sample in microformat: http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/attentionxml sample: http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/AttentionSample Is this the format that people are currently using who are working on attention applications? We are keen to use a standard format so to allow people to move their attention data from one service to another, so would really appreciate any pointers Many thanks Nick Swan ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss -- Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Hi Joe, Gotcha... sorry for the intrusion... didn't want to stir things up.. No worries. After all, most of are here *in order* to stir things up. :-) it certainly is a big challenge. A gentleman on SB recommended Microcontent Description (MCD) as a starting point. Ernie, if you're up for it, I'd be interested in getting something going. I think this list is the place to do it but I certainly respect Tantak's desire to avoid the quagmire! Understood. Maybe a sub-list of some sort that Ernie and I moderate? Best, Joe Not a bad idea at all. Tantek, I realize you may think this a complete waste of time, but would you be willing to at least quarantine us lunatics in our own microformats-schema mailing list? If nothing else, it provides a safety valve to prevent the issue from cropping up here periodically. And who knows? Every 65 million years or so, something *does* manage to boil the ocean. :-) -- Ernie P. On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Joe, Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much feedback from everybody here, of course)? This is actually an FAQ, and a fairly tricky one at that, since it is isomorphic to the problem of a general purpose parser. I believe Tantek has declared that discussion off-topic for this list, since it has the potential to be a never-ending rathole. However, I can't find such a statement on the FAQ: http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Basic_Microformat_Questions Tantek, is that in fact the policy, and is it documented somewhere? That said, there are a few of us crazy enough to want to try, which I'm open to doing off-list if you're interested... -- Ernie P. On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: Hi All! I've been lurking for a while and truly appreciate all of the great work going into microformats right now! I saw a message on the Structured Blogging mailing list that got me thinking about a format-of-formats... a standard way to describe a format. My thoughts are here: http://www.joereger.com/entry-logid7-eventid5003-Structured- Blogging-FormatofFormats.log As I posted, I realized that I haven't checked in with Tantek and others regarding the concept of a format-of-formats. I've seen a lot of Atom/RDF used. I was a proponent of XML Schema a while back. I've been dabbling with Xforms. XUL is out there. My basic position is that we should be able to provide a common format for the description of a microformat. By creating a standard to describe the formats we free toolmakers to create an implementation and then be done with it. Once we have support from WordPress, MT, Drupal, LJ, etc then we can spawn microformats more quickly, requiring little or no development on the toolmaker part. Toolmakers will compete by providing advanced features in their implementation (like CSS override hooks, see blog post). Aggregators like Technorati/PubSub will be able to build advanced functionality on top of specific formats and will compete at that level. For example, Technorati may create Technorati Music while PubSub may create PubSub Movies... their investment differentiates and end-users win. Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much feedback from everybody here, of course)? Thanks for getting me up to speed! Keep up the great work! Best, Joe Reger ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] attention microformat
thanks for the replies... well as I mentioned I'm busy working away on an attention based application and am keen to use a standard that means data can be exchanged with others. What's the best way to get this going again? I've an idea of the data we'd like to store. Is the best thing to do to just post my thoughts here and we see where it goes? Cheers Nick On 3/30/06, Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris is right. The attention.xml effort has been a bit stalled. Ithad initially started as a Technorati initiative, but we'd like to move it to microformats.org. However, as we were moving it, werealized that it actually doesn't follow many of the microformatsprinciples. So, discussion has started about how to make it more 'microformat-y'.-ryanOn Mar 30, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Chris Messina wrote: I think this discussion stalled because it was hard to bake the micro of microformats into attention data... I could be wrong -- but since no one else responded, just thought I'd chime in that I'm not sure any more work has been done recently on that format -- and I'm not clear who, if anyone, is driving it anymore. Chris On 3/30/06, Nick Swan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, first message to the emailing list after attending the microformats and structured blogging session with Marc Canter and Tantek at Mix06. I'm interested in using the attention microformat for an application I'm working on, and so am seeking clarification as to where this format currently is. Checking the wiki entries on the microformat page it seems as though initial discussions began, but didn't get much further: http://microformats.org/wiki/attention Checking on the Technorati wiki there is some more information and even a sample in microformat: http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/attentionxml sample: http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/AttentionSample Is this the format that people are currently using who are working on attention applications? We are keen to use a standard format so to allow people to move their attention data from one service to another, so would really appreciate any pointers Many thanks Nick Swan ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss--Ryan King[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___microformats-discuss mailing listmicroformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki
On 3/30/06, Bruce D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/30/06, Tim White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although, to clarify, your distinction above is really between an in-text citation, and a full bibliographic reference. Um... I just see it as a note pointing to a citation and the citation itself. That fuller citation is still just an external reference, not a full bibliographic record. i.e. you still don't want price, keywords, etc., or even need the ISBN, technically. He's talking about the book as external to the content at hand, which is his blog entry... it's not the book itself. (Not that I would discourage use of formal identifiers where they exist.) ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] attention microformat
Probably get it going on an attention-brainstorming page... The most traction you're likely to get is mashing up existing microformats to represents snippets of attention -- rather than creating a monolithic way of expressing attention. But that's my layman's understanding of this problem, which probably isn't all that insightful. ;) Keep us posted -- it's certainly something that I'm interested in seeing worked on, even if it's unclear whether attention really can be microformatted. Chris On 3/30/06, Nick Swan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks for the replies... well as I mentioned I'm busy working away on an attention based application and am keen to use a standard that means data can be exchanged with others. What's the best way to get this going again? I've an idea of the data we'd like to store. Is the best thing to do to just post my thoughts here and we see where it goes? Cheers Nick On 3/30/06, Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris is right. The attention.xml effort has been a bit stalled. It had initially started as a Technorati initiative, but we'd like to move it to microformats.org. However, as we were moving it, we realized that it actually doesn't follow many of the microformats principles. So, discussion has started about how to make it more 'microformat-y'. -ryan On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Chris Messina wrote: I think this discussion stalled because it was hard to bake the micro of microformats into attention data... I could be wrong -- but since no one else responded, just thought I'd chime in that I'm not sure any more work has been done recently on that format -- and I'm not clear who, if anyone, is driving it anymore. Chris On 3/30/06, Nick Swan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, first message to the emailing list after attending the microformats and structured blogging session with Marc Canter and Tantek at Mix06. I'm interested in using the attention microformat for an application I'm working on, and so am seeking clarification as to where this format currently is. Checking the wiki entries on the microformat page it seems as though initial discussions began, but didn't get much further: http://microformats.org/wiki/attention Checking on the Technorati wiki there is some more information and even a sample in microformat: http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/attentionxml sample: http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/AttentionSample Is this the format that people are currently using who are working on attention applications? We are keen to use a standard format so to allow people to move their attention data from one service to another, so would really appreciate any pointers Many thanks Nick Swan ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss -- Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Chris, The perceived value that you see is exactly why this whole topic is such a massive trap. It is very seductive (especially to programmers) to think that you can define a format for formats (a meta-format shall we say), *once*, then implement *only that*, then have every specific format magically work. In practice, this never[*] happens. It's been tried *numerous* times. DTD, XML Schema, etc. In practice, key portions/features of really *useful* specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta-format, and *must* be specified in prose of a specification. This is specifically why I designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to define/recognize a vocabulary. I'm working on some extensions for includes (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP done. In the spirit of don't reinvent what you can re-use, anyone seriously desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves DTD, and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they can do better. And yes, exploring a format-of-formats is very much off topic and not just outside, but *against* the philosophies and principles of microformats. http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats Thanks, Tantek [*]The *one* exception that I know of to this that adherents have had (at least) some amount of success with is RDF. If you're really interested in generic format-of-formats type discussions and all the abstractions present therein, there is already a community that has far more experience and understanding and desire in that space than the microformats community. On 3/30/06 11:41 AM, Chris Messina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do see this work having value, especially if browsers and client-side apps are going to be able to keep up with the various microformats as they are created and improved. I don't know much about the history of this kind of discussion, but it sounds useful *if* it can develop standards to ease the deployment of new microformats into the wild... Chris On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Joe, Gotcha... sorry for the intrusion... didn't want to stir things up.. No worries. After all, most of are here *in order* to stir things up. :-) it certainly is a big challenge. A gentleman on SB recommended Microcontent Description (MCD) as a starting point. Ernie, if you're up for it, I'd be interested in getting something going. I think this list is the place to do it but I certainly respect Tantak's desire to avoid the quagmire! Understood. Maybe a sub-list of some sort that Ernie and I moderate? Best, Joe Not a bad idea at all. Tantek, I realize you may think this a complete waste of time, but would you be willing to at least quarantine us lunatics in our own microformats-schema mailing list? If nothing else, it provides a safety valve to prevent the issue from cropping up here periodically. And who knows? Every 65 million years or so, something *does* manage to boil the ocean. :-) -- Ernie P. On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Joe, Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much feedback from everybody here, of course)? This is actually an FAQ, and a fairly tricky one at that, since it is isomorphic to the problem of a general purpose parser. I believe Tantek has declared that discussion off-topic for this list, since it has the potential to be a never-ending rathole. However, I can't find such a statement on the FAQ: http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Basic_Microformat_Questions Tantek, is that in fact the policy, and is it documented somewhere? That said, there are a few of us crazy enough to want to try, which I'm open to doing off-list if you're interested... -- Ernie P. On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: Hi All! I've been lurking for a while and truly appreciate all of the great work going into microformats right now! I saw a message on the Structured Blogging mailing list that got me thinking about a format-of-formats... a standard way to describe a format. My thoughts are here: http://www.joereger.com/entry-logid7-eventid5003-Structured- Blogging-FormatofFormats.log As I posted, I realized that I haven't checked in with Tantek and others regarding the concept of a format-of-formats. I've seen a lot of Atom/RDF used. I was a proponent of XML Schema a while back. I've been dabbling with Xforms. XUL is out there. My basic position is that we should be able to provide a common format for the description of a microformat. By creating a standard to describe the formats we free toolmakers to create
[uf-discuss] Bookmark Interchange Format (mailing list)
Fabio Vescarelli (developer of smarking.com) has just set up a mailing list for discussion/development of a format for data interchange between Social Bookmarking services - the iconic example being del.icio.us Introductory blog post: http://blog.smarking.com/2006/03/bookmarks_inter.html List admin: http://mailman-mail1.python-hosting.com/listinfo/bif I might as well give my 2 cents - It seems to me there are three interelated aspects to the technical requirements. As it happens there is an existing initiative that may be able to inform each, so I've bcc'd their respective mailing lists (below). I'll skip comment on the process for this initiative (potential rathole), but there are at least 3 to choose from ;-) So... 1. data model - what is the information to be exchanged? 2. concrete representation - what format? 2. interchange protocol - how is the data passed from A to B? IMHO... For 1: A bookmark identifies a Web resource. In the Social Bookmarking it is described by through individual user comments and folksonomic tags. Seems like a Resource Description Framework might be useful. There are well-established RDF vocabularies for basic annotations (notably Dublin Core) and describing people such as those doing the bookmarking (FOAF). There's also a vocabulary for capturing tagging info [1]. RDF is eminently suitable for a data model. For 2: The most deployed format for bookmark-like data is HTML. It's been demonstrated how this can be used for carrying explicit data through microformats (uFs). The xFolk microformat [2] is very much in the bookmarking space, though XFN and XOXO could help with person and structural aspects. XHTML (with microformat profiles) is eminently suitable for a format. For 3: HTTP is the protocol of the Web, this is the obvious starting point. But to be useful in a context like this it needs to be be built upon to cover practical aspects like editing, version control and authentication. The Atom Publishing Protocol (APP) [3] is being designed to cover these, and is eminently suitable for a protocol. APP can easily carry uFs as a payload. uFs can be deterministically mapped to RDF models (see GRDDL [4]). All three build on solid standards. Best of all worlds. A couple of comments about points raised on the bif list so far: the notion of folders needs pinning down a little. Presumably we're talking nested containers, but IMHO leaving this as nested elements in X(HT)ML is way too vague. It needs to be mapped to something more portable, that works outside of the local doc context. Many things like ratings could be derived from other existing vocabs: hReview allows rating of a resource. Things like specific application behaviour like search aren't really in scope - if the data is expressed (and transported) unambiguously, the functionality is open-ended. [One little side grumble - the examples of xFolk I've seen all leave out the profile identifier (html:head/@profile). With it, there's an explicit statement by the publisher that the uF is in use, that there's data conforming to the profile. Without it, it's anyone's guess, not much improvement on scraping.] Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/ [2] http://microformats.org/wiki/xfolk [3] http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/ [4] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec Semantic Web [EMAIL PROTECTED], Microformats Discuss microformats-discuss@microformats.org, Atom-Protocol Protocol [EMAIL PROTECTED], -- http://dannyayers.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Bookmark Interchange Format (mailing list)
I very much agree that xFolk needs additional elements to support some of the social bookmarking applications. There is no need to reinvent the wheel in doing this as you point out. For instance, hcard or xfn might be used for identity. I'm not so sure about the folders idea. My guess is that some of this may boil down into how one represents underlying semantics. For instance, tags could be represented as folders or as a tag cloud. Also, need you represent it all or just the most common elements? I've been lying low on xFolk for the past many months. My mother passed away in the fall after a long illness that was really bad at the end, and I had a lot of extra duties. I'm back now and very much interested in getting some more work going on this if there is outside interest. Bud On Mar 30, 2006, at 15:34, Danny Ayers wrote: Fabio Vescarelli (developer of smarking.com) has just set up a mailing list for discussion/development of a format for data interchange between Social Bookmarking services - the iconic example being del.icio.us Introductory blog post: http://blog.smarking.com/2006/03/bookmarks_inter.html List admin: http://mailman-mail1.python-hosting.com/listinfo/bif I might as well give my 2 cents - It seems to me there are three interelated aspects to the technical requirements. As it happens there is an existing initiative that may be able to inform each, so I've bcc'd their respective mailing lists (below). I'll skip comment on the process for this initiative (potential rathole), but there are at least 3 to choose from ;-) So... 1. data model - what is the information to be exchanged? 2. concrete representation - what format? 2. interchange protocol - how is the data passed from A to B? IMHO... For 1: A bookmark identifies a Web resource. In the Social Bookmarking it is described by through individual user comments and folksonomic tags. Seems like a Resource Description Framework might be useful. There are well-established RDF vocabularies for basic annotations (notably Dublin Core) and describing people such as those doing the bookmarking (FOAF). There's also a vocabulary for capturing tagging info [1]. RDF is eminently suitable for a data model. For 2: The most deployed format for bookmark-like data is HTML. It's been demonstrated how this can be used for carrying explicit data through microformats (uFs). The xFolk microformat [2] is very much in the bookmarking space, though XFN and XOXO could help with person and structural aspects. XHTML (with microformat profiles) is eminently suitable for a format. For 3: HTTP is the protocol of the Web, this is the obvious starting point. But to be useful in a context like this it needs to be be built upon to cover practical aspects like editing, version control and authentication. The Atom Publishing Protocol (APP) [3] is being designed to cover these, and is eminently suitable for a protocol. APP can easily carry uFs as a payload. uFs can be deterministically mapped to RDF models (see GRDDL [4]). All three build on solid standards. Best of all worlds. A couple of comments about points raised on the bif list so far: the notion of folders needs pinning down a little. Presumably we're talking nested containers, but IMHO leaving this as nested elements in X(HT)ML is way too vague. It needs to be mapped to something more portable, that works outside of the local doc context. Many things like ratings could be derived from other existing vocabs: hReview allows rating of a resource. Things like specific application behaviour like search aren't really in scope - if the data is expressed (and transported) unambiguously, the functionality is open-ended. [One little side grumble - the examples of xFolk I've seen all leave out the profile identifier (html:head/@profile). With it, there's an explicit statement by the publisher that the uF is in use, that there's data conforming to the profile. Without it, it's anyone's guess, not much improvement on scraping.] Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/ [2] http://microformats.org/wiki/xfolk [3] http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/ [4] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec Semantic Web [EMAIL PROTECTED], Microformats Discuss microformats-discuss@microformats.org, Atom-Protocol Protocol [EMAIL PROTECTED], -- http://dannyayers.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Tantek Ç elik wrote... In practice, this never[*] happens. It's been tried *numerous* times. DTD, XML Schema, etc. In practice, key portions/features of really *useful* specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta-format, and *must* be specified in prose of a specification. This is specifically why I designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to define/recognize a vocabulary. I'm working on some extensions for includes (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP done. In the spirit of don't reinvent what you can re-use, anyone seriously desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves DTD, and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they can do better. Why aren't they just using DTD or SML Schema for this? That was the first thing I thought of when Joe first posted. Atamido ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Yeah, I didn't really think that this topic could be solved (or even discussed) herein. It's a nice pipedream, but I do agree falls outside the boundaries of the achieveable goals that we've set out w/ microformats. Chris On 3/30/06, Paul Bryson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tantek Ç elik wrote... In practice, this never[*] happens. It's been tried *numerous* times. DTD, XML Schema, etc. In practice, key portions/features of really *useful* specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta-format, and *must* be specified in prose of a specification. This is specifically why I designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to define/recognize a vocabulary. I'm working on some extensions for includes (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP done. In the spirit of don't reinvent what you can re-use, anyone seriously desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves DTD, and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they can do better. Why aren't they just using DTD or SML Schema for this? That was the first thing I thought of when Joe first posted. Atamido ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
[uf-discuss] Bookmark interchange format
Might want to get some mF support behind this guy's effort -- and steer him towards focusing on xFolk improvements: http://blog.smarking.com/2006/03/bookmarks_inter.html Chris ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
I mostly agree with tantek, but I would like to point out a few more things to look at as far as this sort of effort goes. XSLT provides more than enough power to describe and extract information out of pages with microformats embedded. x2v demonstrates this. If you're looking for a single implementation for microformats, look no further than libxslt, or sabotron, or whatever your favorite xslt engine. The whole model for this sort of thing is laid out in GRDDL on w3's website. Tim Berners Lee seems to advocate using the GRDDL model to transform microformats into RDF, using xslt. RDF is about as neutral a format for data as you're going to get. So pretty much all the difficult problems for the sort of thing you want have already been solved as best they can be. The difficult part now is adoption. On Mar 30, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Chris Messina wrote: Yeah, I didn't really think that this topic could be solved (or even discussed) herein. It's a nice pipedream, but I do agree falls outside the boundaries of the achieveable goals that we've set out w/ microformats. Chris On 3/30/06, Paul Bryson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tantek Ç elik wrote... In practice, this never[*] happens. It's been tried *numerous* times. DTD, XML Schema, etc. In practice, key portions/features of really *useful* specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta- format, and *must* be specified in prose of a specification. This is specifically why I designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to define/recognize a vocabulary. I'm working on some extensions for includes (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP done. In the spirit of don't reinvent what you can re-use, anyone seriously desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves DTD, and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they can do better. Why aren't they just using DTD or SML Schema for this? That was the first thing I thought of when Joe first posted. Atamido ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
before having the arrogance to think they can do better. I'm not proposing that we create a replacement for XML Schema or any of the other great technologies out there... just that we agree on one as the most frequently used, most standard, most common, baseline, generally accepted but not perfect way to describe a microformat. As you note, there are a lot of ways to crack this nut. And this is the fact that I'm having trouble with. Toolmakers, aggregators and innovators are having a tough time with microformats because each new one that pops up requires custom code. Instead of taking a leadership role, choosing one and advocating adoption, you seem to revel in the establishment of many microformats. I'm questioning where the customization should be... at the user level where apps are differentiated? Or at the format level? Why should each format have to start at ground zero, write custom plugins, force users to install them and then gain adoption? Why should Technorati have to write custom code at the format level for each format (of course it needs to write custom code at the business logic layer... that's how we all differentiate). If we agree to a framework, even with all of the limitations of whatever framework we choose, aren't we helping users use microformats more? What about the people from National Geographic who want to set up a format to track wildlife? Should they have to understand XML Schema to take part in the microformat revolution? And what about the people in middle Iowa who like to count hay stacks? Should they have to learn arcane programming languages just to define a two field microformat (hay stack color, hay stack size)? I understand your desire to not standardize on a definition language. Because doing so will inherently create limitations to what can be done. And some things just can't be done with a basic approach. And those things that gain massive adoption probably shouldn't be done with a simple approach. I'm talking about the long tail of microformats... who's looking out for all those users? Users are crying out, on this very mailing list, every single day for an easier way to create and use microformats. Maybe we should see microformats.org as the high-end solution with the flexibility to cover everything. But I think we also need a microformats Light that enables most of the functionality that most of the people are looking for. In the last 5 days I've seen these microformats proposed: Bookmark Exchange Format Attention Microformat Citation Format MicroId Plants Format Work of Art Conversation Following this list you see these requests all the time. This week's performance would predict 260 microformats in a year. And really, if somebody's posting to this mailing list they're probably hyper-plugged in to geekland. If we think about our users... the millions of people we rely on to make all of our geeky stuff actually useful... how many formats do you think are out there with pent-up demand? I'd say... um... a lot. And how many formats has microformats.org created/sanctioned so far throughout its history? I see nine specs. Eleven drafts. Thirty seven exploratory discussions. That's 21% of the requested formats we're seeing on this board. And I'd argue that it's about .01% of the total number of microformats that our users would like to see and be able to use. Think of all of the hobbies out there... all of the interest groups... they all track custom data of some sort. Sure, we don't care about that data type... but it's their life... they're passionate about it. Who's serving them? Who's enabling them? Who's letting them publish so that smart entrepreneurs can leverage that data into the next aggregation phenomenon? To me this user-oriented analysis paints an obvious argument for a format-of-formats. The current microformat mailing list and developer community is doing great work but it's not supporting the users who want a quicker means of creating and using microformats. I could be wrong on this... please prove me so. Microformats should be the plumbing and grease for this thing we all (begrudgingly) call Web 2.0. I want to be clear on one thing: I love the work being done on microformats.org. It is truly valuable and innovative. The process and ideals are wonderful. The people doing the work are collaborative and productive. I am in no way against what's being done. And I appreciate and completely understand Tantek's strong desire to squash my ideas quickly before I distract people from the work already being done. I simply see a big gaping hole in what's being done today. What I've been told is essentially that I can take my hole and go play elsewhere. I don't like hearing that, but there's likely little I can or should do about it. If the users and readers of this list don't agree with my ideas and proposals then I should be kicked off. I promise I won't be a nuisance. But before I go I'd like to ask everybody
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Allow me to point you directly to the GRDDL site. http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/grddl/ Along with xmdp, I believe it thoroughly addresses all the issues you raise about as well as they can possibly be addressed. On Mar 30, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: before having the arrogance to think they can do better. I'm not proposing that we create a replacement for XML Schema or any of the other great technologies out there... just that we agree on one as the most frequently used, most standard, most common, baseline, generally accepted but not perfect way to describe a microformat. As you note, there are a lot of ways to crack this nut. And this is the fact that I'm having trouble with. Toolmakers, aggregators and innovators are having a tough time with microformats because each new one that pops up requires custom code. Instead of taking a leadership role, choosing one and advocating adoption, you seem to revel in the establishment of many microformats. I'm questioning where the customization should be... at the user level where apps are differentiated? Or at the format level? Why should each format have to start at ground zero, write custom plugins, force users to install them and then gain adoption? Why should Technorati have to write custom code at the format level for each format (of course it needs to write custom code at the business logic layer... that's how we all differentiate). If we agree to a framework, even with all of the limitations of whatever framework we choose, aren't we helping users use microformats more? What about the people from National Geographic who want to set up a format to track wildlife? Should they have to understand XML Schema to take part in the microformat revolution? And what about the people in middle Iowa who like to count hay stacks? Should they have to learn arcane programming languages just to define a two field microformat (hay stack color, hay stack size)? I understand your desire to not standardize on a definition language. Because doing so will inherently create limitations to what can be done. And some things just can't be done with a basic approach. And those things that gain massive adoption probably shouldn't be done with a simple approach. I'm talking about the long tail of microformats... who's looking out for all those users? Users are crying out, on this very mailing list, every single day for an easier way to create and use microformats. Maybe we should see microformats.org as the high-end solution with the flexibility to cover everything. But I think we also need a microformats Light that enables most of the functionality that most of the people are looking for. In the last 5 days I've seen these microformats proposed: Bookmark Exchange Format Attention Microformat Citation Format MicroId Plants Format Work of Art Conversation Following this list you see these requests all the time. This week's performance would predict 260 microformats in a year. And really, if somebody's posting to this mailing list they're probably hyper-plugged in to geekland. If we think about our users... the millions of people we rely on to make all of our geeky stuff actually useful... how many formats do you think are out there with pent-up demand? I'd say... um... a lot. And how many formats has microformats.org created/sanctioned so far throughout its history? I see nine specs. Eleven drafts. Thirty seven exploratory discussions. That's 21% of the requested formats we're seeing on this board. And I'd argue that it's about .01% of the total number of microformats that our users would like to see and be able to use. Think of all of the hobbies out there... all of the interest groups... they all track custom data of some sort. Sure, we don't care about that data type... but it's their life... they're passionate about it. Who's serving them? Who's enabling them? Who's letting them publish so that smart entrepreneurs can leverage that data into the next aggregation phenomenon? To me this user-oriented analysis paints an obvious argument for a format-of-formats. The current microformat mailing list and developer community is doing great work but it's not supporting the users who want a quicker means of creating and using microformats. I could be wrong on this... please prove me so. Microformats should be the plumbing and grease for this thing we all (begrudgingly) call Web 2.0. I want to be clear on one thing: I love the work being done on microformats.org. It is truly valuable and innovative. The process and ideals are wonderful. The people doing the work are collaborative and productive. I am in no way against what's being done. And I appreciate and completely understand Tantek's strong desire to squash my ideas quickly before I distract people from the work already being done. I simply see a big gaping hole in what's being done today. What I've been told is essentially that I can take my hole and go play
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. The w3c. Thanks, I completely agree. What I'm looking for is the best way to get some degree of sanctioning of RDF/XMLSchema/XSL/whatever and then use that sanctioning to gain toolmaker adoption. It would seem to me that this mailing list is the place to do that, but I guess I'm wrong. Do you know of another group that's lobbying toolmakers to support something like this? Best, Joe ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. The w3c. Nah... I appreciate your effort. But the w3c is not forging relationships with blogging toolmakers and trying to gain adoption of a long tail microformat framework. But I know that those on this list have relationships in place. This critical piece of Web 2.0 plumbing should be in place as soon as possible and that's going to take advocacy. I thought that microformats.org would be interested in being the one to define this piece of the puzzle... it seems a natural extension. And microformats.org can accomplish this much more quickly than little old Joe Reger can. If we all generally understand that it's going to happen, why aren't we taking the leadership role in making it happen? I know what microformats are not but maybe microformats.org can embrace a sub-project to make this happen. We don't have to call them microformats... users don't really care what they're called... as long as they can spin them up easily and leverage the power of the blogosphere. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
This is where you have completely lost me. You are not making it particularly clear what problem it is that you actually want to solve. Here's some more links. I truly believe this problem is much smaller than you believe it is. http://dannyayers.com/2005/08/01/microformats-on-the-grddl/ http://people.w3.org/~dom/archives/2005/05/grddl-specification-updated/ http://b4mad.net/datenbrei/archives/2005/12/13/grddl-vcard-and- microsformats-a-ballet/ These are not extremely obscure technologies, they solve the problem, the w3c advocates their usage, Blog makers that have any interest in standards and the semantic web *will* adopt them sooner or later. So will /browsers/, and /search engines/. And if they don't, it's not rocket science to write a plugin that makes it work for whatever problem you happen to want to solve. It's very simple, and it's not hidden knowledge on microformats.org. If you want to describe a microformat, use xmdp. If you want to do something with a microformat, write an xslt. This is the standard, this is advocated, and it works today. If you want to help out the effort for adoption of these technologies... adopt them! You don't have to go any further than that. If it works, and does something sexy, then other people will try and do what you did. Very simple. On Mar 30, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. The w3c. Nah... I appreciate your effort. But the w3c is not forging relationships with blogging toolmakers and trying to gain adoption of a long tail microformat framework. But I know that those on this list have relationships in place. This critical piece of Web 2.0 plumbing should be in place as soon as possible and that's going to take advocacy. I thought that microformats.org would be interested in being the one to define this piece of the puzzle... it seems a natural extension. And microformats.org can accomplish this much more quickly than little old Joe Reger can. If we all generally understand that it's going to happen, why aren't we taking the leadership role in making it happen? I know what microformats are not but maybe microformats.org can embrace a sub-project to make this happen. We don't have to call them microformats... users don't really care what they're called... as long as they can spin them up easily and leverage the power of the blogosphere. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
what problem it is that you actually want to solve. The sooner or later problem. Joe ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Joe, First of all, I really appreciate your enthusiasm. I can see that you understand and appreciate microformats and the ideas behind them. However, a format-for-formats is outside the scope of the discussion here. So, I'm going to have to ask that we take this discussion elsewhere. Other topics brought up in this thread (esp, later on, regarding evangelism and adoption) are definitely on-topic and important, but the technological topic of a meta-microformat is out of scope now (and possibly forever). I'll explain with some inline comments (and hopefully convert this to an FAQ soon-ish)... (if you have any questions/comments, remember, please take it off- list, feel free to email me directly about anything I say) On Mar 30, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: before having the arrogance to think they can do better. I'm not proposing that we create a replacement for XML Schema or any of the other great technologies out there... just that we agree on one as the most frequently used, most standard, most common, baseline, generally accepted but not perfect way to describe a microformat. We can, its called prose. Tantek's earlier point, which I agree with with, is this: Formats always need prose to describe them. Prose supersedes formal descriptions (mostly because, being our native representation as humans, its more reliable). Since this is the case, its is more useful and expedient to just do prose + examples (including reference implementations). The second argument against meta-languages is history. Meta-languages have shown to be insufficient for describing formats in way that is fully interoperable with reality. Why should we believe that we're any smarter. * As you note, there are a lot of ways to crack this nut. And this is the fact that I'm having trouble with. Toolmakers, aggregators and innovators are having a tough time with microformats because each new one that pops up requires custom code. It seems that you're suggesting that we can survive with writing a declarative description of a microformat, which can then produce code for publishing and consuming microformats. I, personally, don't think this is a problem that has been solved anywhere and since it is outside the core technology needed for microformats adoption, it is extremely low priority. Instead of taking a leadership role, choosing one and advocating adoption, you seem to revel in the establishment of many microformats. I'm questioning where the customization should be... at the user level where apps are differentiated? Or at the format level? Why should each format have to start at ground zero, I think this is an overstatement. Apps don't have to start at zero. There are many libraries for healing with markup. write custom plugins, force users to install them and then gain adoption? Why should Technorati have to write custom code at the format level for each format Because each one is different. ... Maybe we should see microformats.org as the high-end solution with the flexibility to cover everything. But I think we also need a microformats Light that enables most of the functionality that most of the people are looking for. We already have 'microformats light,' its called 'semantic markup.' Semantic markup has been an option longer than microformats have. In the last 5 days I've seen these microformats proposed: Bookmark Exchange Format Attention Microformat Citation Format MicroId Plants Format Work of Art Conversation 3 of those formats already exist. The others are being worked on. Following this list you see these requests all the time. This week's performance would predict 260 microformats in a year. And really, if somebody's posting to this mailing list they're probably hyper-plugged in to geekland. If we think about our users... the millions of people we rely on to make all of our geeky stuff actually useful... how many formats do you think are out there with pent-up demand? I'd say... um... a lot. I'd prefer not to think of requests in terms of numbers of formats, but in terms of functionality. With small, simple, modular microformats, many solutions are possible. We don't need a specific format for every use-case. Also, more formats is not necessarily a good thing. Remember, we're working with a shared vocabulary, which means we need careful management of that vocabulary. We don't want to create another Tower of Babel. ... To me this user-oriented analysis paints an obvious argument for a format-of-formats. The current microformat mailing list and developer community is doing great work but it's not supporting the users who want a quicker means of creating and using microformats. I could be wrong on this... please prove me so. I can understand that people want things quickly, but we can't just throw an idea in a microwave oven, hoping that it will come out tasty in a few minutes. The
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
So, I'm going to have to ask that we take this discussion elsewhere. I completely understand and apologize for the intrusion. Thanks for the comments... you make many excellent points and I'll take them to heart as I consider ways to get some sort of standard adopted by toolmakers. But don't expect big things... I'm just little old Joe down here in Atlanta. The microformats process is much faster and efficient than a standards body, yet slower than two guys in a garage Yep... I agree. And this is a very valuable, productive balance. Keep up the great work at microformats.org! Best to all, Joe ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Ryan produced, I extrapolated: Semantic markup is the long tail of microformats. Short and to the point. I like it. :DG ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
