Re: [uf-discuss] HTML5, Microformats and RDFa
Scott Reynen wrote: I think comparing RDFa to microformats actually hurts your argument by suggesting they solve the same problem and reinforcing the notion that the wider problem RDFa seeks to solve is unimportant. Rather, I would interpret the mentions of microformats as an indication that people are missing the wider problem RDFa would solve, and focus on making that clearer, by talking about what RDFa does that microformats don't even attempt to do. Scott, Ben - thanks for the feedback, both of you make some very good points and I've adjusted my argumentation a bit to follow advice expressed by both of you. Things are being clarified in some ways on the HTML5 list and muddied in others. The one thing that is clear is that most of those on the list are not as up-to-speed with web semantics as either this community or the RDFa community would expect. Certainly, I was a bit blind-sided by some of the false assertions those on the list were making about semantics in general. The very long thread continues, RDFa Problem Statement and Features http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015957.html Intro to RDFa http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015974.html RDFa markup consistency http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015992.html CSS-based approach to semantic data on the Web (Microformats and RDFa) http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015996.html Of particular note is the last thread - the CSS-based approach to semantic data markup. It's a proposal that, while interesting, ignores the hard work that this community and the RDFa community has done over the past several years. I could be mis-reading the various threads, so some feedback from this list would be appreciated. -- manu -- Manu Sporny President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Bitmunk 3.0 Website Launches http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/07/03/bitmunk-3-website-launches ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] HTML5, Microformats and RDFa
Manu,
the css based approach is somethin that has come up in discussions
about semantics with fellow workers. I believe it does not trash all
of the hard work the communities have don so far. All it does, from
what i gathered, is move the semantics from html and places it in a
separate file/place. The vocabulary used could be one specified by
ufs. For instance: #tags a { rel: tag; }
it all comes down to: do we want to separate semantics from our markup?
thanks for the heads up on this matter.
Cheers,
André Luís
On 8/28/08, Manu Sporny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Reynen wrote:
I think comparing RDFa to microformats actually hurts your argument by
suggesting they solve the same problem and reinforcing the notion that
the wider problem RDFa seeks to solve is unimportant. Rather, I would
interpret the mentions of microformats as an indication that people are
missing the wider problem RDFa would solve, and focus on making that
clearer, by talking about what RDFa does that microformats don't even
attempt to do.
Scott, Ben - thanks for the feedback, both of you make some very good
points and I've adjusted my argumentation a bit to follow advice
expressed by both of you. Things are being clarified in some ways on the
HTML5 list and muddied in others.
The one thing that is clear is that most of those on the list are not as
up-to-speed with web semantics as either this community or the RDFa
community would expect. Certainly, I was a bit blind-sided by some of
the false assertions those on the list were making about semantics in
general.
The very long thread continues,
RDFa Problem Statement and Features
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015957.html
Intro to RDFa
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015974.html
RDFa markup consistency
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015992.html
CSS-based approach to semantic data on the Web (Microformats and RDFa)
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015996.html
Of particular note is the last thread - the CSS-based approach to
semantic data markup. It's a proposal that, while interesting, ignores
the hard work that this community and the RDFa community has done over
the past several years. I could be mis-reading the various threads, so
some feedback from this list would be appreciated.
-- manu
--
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.0 Website Launches
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/07/03/bitmunk-3-website-launches
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] HTML5, Microformats and RDFa
André Luís wrote: Manu, the css based approach is somethin that has come up in discussions about semantics with fellow workers. I believe it does not trash all of the hard work the communities have don so far. I never said the discussions trashed all of our hard work. I said that some of the discussions ignore (some) of the hard work performed by this community as well as the RDFa community. All it does, from what i gathered, is move the semantics from html and places it in a separate file/place. Right - which both this community and the RDFa community are opposed to: 1. We do not want semantics to be placed in separate files. 2. We do not want vocabularies to be re-defined from site to site. 3. We want semantic markup to be easy to author for regular people - CSS is /not/ easy to author. That's what I was attempting to point out with my statement. Apologies if I was not clear :) -- manu ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] HTML5, Microformats and RDFa
I had misread you there, Manu. I apologize. Thanks for clearing it up. Those 3x bullet points are a great summary. Well done. -- André On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Manu Sporny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: André Luís wrote: Manu, the css based approach is somethin that has come up in discussions about semantics with fellow workers. I believe it does not trash all of the hard work the communities have don so far. I never said the discussions trashed all of our hard work. I said that some of the discussions ignore (some) of the hard work performed by this community as well as the RDFa community. All it does, from what i gathered, is move the semantics from html and places it in a separate file/place. Right - which both this community and the RDFa community are opposed to: 1. We do not want semantics to be placed in separate files. 2. We do not want vocabularies to be re-defined from site to site. 3. We want semantic markup to be easy to author for regular people - CSS is /not/ easy to author. That's what I was attempting to point out with my statement. Apologies if I was not clear :) -- manu ___ 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] HTML5, Microformats and RDFa
On [Aug 25], at [ Aug 25] 8:47 , Manu Sporny wrote: There have been several threads discussing Microformats, RDFa and HTML5 that are occurring on the WHATWG mailing list. The discussion relates to whether or not HTML5 should depend on the Microformats community to solve HTML5's semantic markup issues, or if both Microformats and RDFa should be considered for semantic web markup issues. The start of the discussion is here: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015860.html and continues here: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015875.html I have authored a blog reply, stating that HTML5 should not depend on the Microformats community to develop all semantic web vocabularies, the reasoning can be viewed here: http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/08/23/html5-rdfa-and-microformats/ Manu, I agree it's unfortunate microformats, created to fill gaps in HTML, are now suggested as a reason to not fill those gaps. That said, it seems to me you're misreading your opposition here. Microformats are based entirely on HTML (which Ian fully understands, having participated early on in the microformats community), so the underlying argument being made against RDFa is that *HTML* is already sufficient, that there is no need for it to solve the wider problem RDFa would solve. As Ian said (with no mention of microformats): It would be helpful if you could send a separate message that is specifically asking for the changes you desire, and explaining what problem it is they address, and what research shows that that is an important enough problem that we should address it. Whatever shortcomings microformats or the process have should be irrelevant to making such a case for RDFa. Microformats explicitly do not seek to solve the wider problem as RDFa does, so rather than trying to convince people that RDFa solves the problem better than microformats, I suggest you convince them that the wider problem would actually be useful to solve. (That microformats don't solve it should then be self-evident, as microformats do not even attempt to solve it.) I think comparing RDFa to microformats actually hurts your argument by suggesting they solve the same problem and reinforcing the notion that the wider problem RDFa seeks to solve is unimportant. Rather, I would interpret the mentions of microformats as an indication that people are missing the wider problem RDFa would solve, and focus on making that clearer, by talking about what RDFa does that microformats don't even attempt to do. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] HTML5, Microformats and RDFa
On 25 Aug 2008, at 19:47, Manu Sporny wrote: There have been several threads discussing Microformats, RDFa and HTML5 that are occurring on the WHATWG mailing list. The discussion relates to whether or not HTML5 should depend on the Microformats community to solve HTML5's semantic markup issues, or if both Microformats and RDFa should be considered for semantic web markup issues. I've been out of touch with HTML5 development for a bit, but the way you describe this paragraph is somewhat alarming. We, the microformats community, absolutely *should not* be relied on the fill every gap in HTML. That they would not specify minority concerns in the HTML language is perfectly understandable, but the Microformats Community is itself not designed to do that either. This community, with this development process, is completely inappropriate for filling every single extended use for HTML that people might have. HOWEVER, there may just be misinterpretation here. Perhaps rather than intending to depend on our specific community, the intention is that the gaps be filled with ‘microformat-like patterns’. Patterns, class- patterns, ‘posh’… whatever you want to call it. Microformats.org does not own the class attribute and anyone working on techniques that are incompatible with our process can do so. It seems to me the case is not about ‘microformats.org’, but instead about the capabilities of the class attribute itself. Is it just that the word ‘microformats’ is being used as a generic catch-all for semantic class name patterns? It seems quite reasonable that the HTML working group be considering the use case of ‘extended semantic description in HTML’ and considering its existing capabilities (which are proving very capable in the specific case of microformats), rather than a use case of ‘support RDFa in HTML’, which is just one solution. I think Scott is correct in that you may need to reframe your argument. Any push to have RDFa made a part of HTML5 should be focused on the capabilities of RDFa compared to the class attribute, not the (often intentional) limitations of one particular user of the class attribute (us). Ben ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
