On 12/5/06, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
In HTML or JSON, new formats need new parsers, which must be written
by someone.
Exactly. The point is if you have a generic model you have a generic parser.
Elias is coming from an RDF background, and microformats
simply aren't RDF,
On Dec 6, 2006, at 1:14 AM, Shorthouse, David wrote:
To that end, I now make use of uBio LSIDs marked-up species pages
with:
h1span class=species urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:2029133Theridion
agrifoliae/span Levi, 1957/h1
.in the hopes that uBio's and other LSIDs will eventually
contribute
From: Bruce D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The issue isn't really microformats vs. RDF (except as RDF provides a
model), but microformats vs. RDFa.
[snip]
So while it might be comforting to dismiss RDFa and it's not our
problem, I don't think it's good strategy.
I agree..
Parsing
Per [1] RDFa
On Dec 6, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
On 12/5/06, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In HTML or JSON, new formats need new parsers, which must be written
by someone.
Exactly. The point is if you have a generic model you have a
generic parser.
Right. HTML doesn't have a
From: Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So while it might be comforting to dismiss RDFa and it's not our
problem, I don't think it's good strategy.
A good strategy toward what end? I think Elias has a problem that
microformats are not intended to solve. What he wants to do is have a
generic
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian
Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Should adr be required, if any of its sub-categories are present, in
hCard?
[...]
i guess the short answer is:
If a ADR child is present it is NOT manditory to make ADR present, but
it will NOT be parsed into a vCard. it will
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I am a relative newcomer to microformats and come with a biological sciences
background so am most interested in the species microformat group of
discussions (http://microformats.org/wiki/species).
It's good to have you
Hi there,
I like these icons but I think, like what happened with the RSS icon
an dialogue needs to happen between interested parties (uf developers,
browser makers, etc) in regards to their use.
And if sites like Technorati also start using them, regular users will
become more familiar with
I know it's short notice (ends 11 December), but some of you might like
to try your hands at the Mashup contest being run by ClearForest:
http://microformats.org/wiki/advocacy#ClearForest
ClearForest uses natural language processing tools to recognise people,
organisations, places,
Why should RDFa get to mooch of the reputation that microformats has
developed over the last 24 months? That reputation was developed by a
lot of hard work by a lot of people (and really hard work by a few).
What has RDFa brought to the table?
Like microformats, RDFa wants to carry inline
Some clarification:
Isn't microformats more than one microformat? And what is a
microformat? I thought a microformat was a specific collection of
defined names and structure defined by a rigorous process of market
research intended to consider pervasive use of semantic html in order
to
Love the icons! As one who originally expressed interest in this
concept I'm happy to see it come about :D One sadly missing icon
seems to be an XOXO icon to replace the one I use at
http://blogxoxo.blogspot.com/ and elsewhere...
--- Singpolyma
On 12/6/06, Angus McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way will stand
the test of taxonomic revisions
I agree with this. It's unclear to me how the current proposal even
relates to the research gathered, and what use cases it might support.
Typically, microformat proposals are heavily
.could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way will
stand
the test of taxonomic revisions
I agree with this. It's unclear to me how the current proposal even
relates to the research gathered, and what use cases it might support.
Typically, microformat proposals are heavily
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Rod Page and I with contributions from Charles Roper have been having an
interesting discussion about OpenSearch on his iSpecies
(http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/ispecies/) blog
(http://ispecies.blogspot.com/) as it
On Dec 6, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
.could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way
will stand
the test of taxonomic revisions
I agree with this.
You may well be right - but since dealing with taxonomic
revisions is
entirely outside the scope of uFs, so what?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott
Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Dec 6, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
.could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way
will stand
the test of taxonomic revisions
I agree with this.
You may well be right - but since dealing with
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Benjamin
West [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
What market?
Market may have several meanings:
* the mindshare of developers
* documents on the web
* formats to represent data
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The advantage of the LSIDs is that they may act as a mapping catalog
that is capable of drawing the lines from old names (or even current
names that have not been fully accepted) to current nomenclature.
Merely using
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
RDFa includes namespacing, the lack of which is already a problem in
microformats (witness hCite and the serious awkwardness that title will be
indicate using fn), and which will grow over time as more and more people
want to mark up their content.
Moreover, the need to
Benjamin West wrote:
Talk of general microformats doesn't make sense. Talk of microformats as
technique also does not make sense.
If that is true, then having Microformat Design Patterns[1] doesn't make
sense. Which is it?
I'm not sure what you mean. A design pattern is a technique, which
21 matches
Mail list logo
