On Apr 29, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Benjamin Carlyle wrote:
It is not clear to me at this time that microformats need profiles.
hcard seems to have several profiles:
http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-profile
http://www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard
hcalendar seems to have none. Has this harmed adoption or
On 4/26/06, Joe Andrieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..snip...]
By my interpretation that has both a format UID and a locator URI for
that format. Shouldn't there be a similar disambiguation for the
microformat class one is using?
This seems related to namespaces and I know only that they
On Apr 26, 2006, at 12:13 AM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
if microformats are going to take off, shouldn't there be a way to
disambiguate inevitable conflicts?
There is. See profiles:
http://microformats.org/wiki/profile-uris
Alternatively, who is to say which version of hCoupon is valid?
Mark
On 4/25/06 10:13 PM, Joe Andrieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello. I'm new to microformats and a bit confused on how one
disambiguates microformat names. It seems to be somewhat related to the
UID/URI issue.
Welcome Joe!
I'm not sure I understand all of the subtleties between the spec
On 4/25/06 8:04 PM, Edward Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 25, 2006, at 6:47 PM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
FWIW, I like Xiaoming's suggestion.
I'm glad Xiaoming expressed the case for URI so well.
Me too.
I just added it
to the uid-brainstorming [1] page. I have to admit I've seen
On Apr 26, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
Ross, if the problem you're trying to solve doesn't involve common
real
world publishing cases on the *Web*, then yes, it should be
dismissed as far
as microformats are concerned.
A large portion of what is published on the web references
On 4/26/06 9:27 AM, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 26, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
Ross, if the problem you're trying to solve doesn't involve common
real
world publishing cases on the *Web*, then yes, it should be
dismissed as far
as microformats are concerned.
On 4/26/06, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The naming 'uri' vs 'uid' aside, would it be reasonable to RECOMMEND
that a URI is used (thus including URLs) and leaving the door open to
less useful ids should people want to use them?
Yes, and I have just added similar details to
On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
A large portion of what is published on the web references things
that don't exist on the web, and thus don't have a canonical URL.
Right, and to resolve whether it is a large portion or not, we
ask that
such things are documented in
On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
I'm glad there's some progress in this discussion, but you're still
trying to come up with a general rule for disparate things.
Nope, we're trying to come up with a general recommendation, not a
rule. So there's no need to explain why URL
On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
So I'd say that URLs should only be preferred where one is referring
to a particular item whose canonical location is in fact on the web.
E.g. when you have a web resource, use a URL. Otherwise, prefer a urn,
and then perhaps other similar
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
The FRBR model says that when talking about stuff, we can think in
terms of four levels of abstraction; from top to bottom:
1) work - an abstract creation
2) expression - some realization of a work (say, an english language text)
3) manifestation (a
Thanks for the clarifications, especially to Tantek and Scott. I've added a
bit to the FAQ. http://microformats.org/faq
Tantek wrote:
Who is the registrar?
Currently we have profile URLs at http://gmpg.org/ and http://w3.org/
Scott wrote:
Alternatively, who is to say which version of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tantek Çelik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The average person knows, understands, and uses telephone numbers and
zip codes all the time. The same cannot be said about ISBN.
Interesting assertion. Care to cite your evidence?
Any study showing use of phones (number of
On Apr 24, 2006, at 8:18 PM, Xiaoming Liu wrote:
Hi, I am joining the discussion with background of library system.
I don't think the definition of UID completely matches URI. The
globally unique identifier has a flavour of UUID, as the example
in vcard.
On 4/24/06 7:56 PM, Etan Wexler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Third, I actually see disadvantages in using URIs as a basic unit rather
than URLs.
All URLs are URIs. What have I missed?
The opposite. The fact that not all URIs are URLs. That's the point. You
can infer things about a URL in
On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
The closest thing to UIDs that current publishers of hCards are
publishing
are their unique URLs within their sites (e.g. Upcoming and
Eventful venues
and events).
I have a concern that using URLs as UIDs will prevent them from being
First of all, Welcome Xiaoming Liu!
On 4/25/06 8:19 AM, Xiaoming Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Ryan King wrote:
URLs, if used propertly can be sufficient for globalby unique
identifier[s]. Sure, you can mess things up by using a non-routeable address
or scheme, but
Tantek Çelik wrote:
I think the case for ISBN is no big difference from telephone number or
zip code, etc.
The average person knows, understands, and uses telephone numbers and zip
codes all the time. The same cannot be said about ISBN. This is a big
difference.
The average person does not
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Tantek Çelik wrote:
Please list the specific problems you've found with UID or URL, so we can
make sure they are documented and properly explored/resolved.
Thanks for taking into consideration.
First hopefully we all agree on the problem to be addressed here, I think
On 4/25/06 12:01 PM, Xiaoming Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Tantek Çelik wrote:
Please list the specific problems you've found with UID or URL, so we can
make sure they are documented and properly explored/resolved.
Thanks for taking into consideration.
First
On Apr 25, 2006, Tantek Çelik wrote:
We *want*
resources that can be identified by network location and thus a
system that
shows a bias *for* that is a *good* thing.
Is the proposal that UIDs SHOULD be URLs or UIDs MUST be URLs? If
it's MUST, that would seem to discourage use of
On 4/25/06, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/25/06 12:01 PM, Xiaoming Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First hopefully we all agree on the problem to be addressed here, I think
it is a microformat for indicating something *is* an identifier, and I
will presume there are three
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tantek Çelik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I think the case for ISBN is no big difference from telephone number or
zip code, etc.
The average person knows, understands, and uses telephone numbers and
zip codes all the time. The same cannot be said about ISBN.
On 4/25/06 2:41 PM, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tantek Çelik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I think the case for ISBN is no big difference from telephone number or
zip code, etc.
The average person knows, understands, and uses telephone numbers and
zip
Tantek,
Your responses and your reply about 'letting the market decide' what
gets to survive on the web makes me think that your attitude about
microformats is:
Microformats are for commercial-purposes first and foremost. Everything else is an edge case that can be dismissed.
And, quite
On 4/25/06 3:04 PM, Ross Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tantek,
Your responses and your reply about 'letting the market decide' what gets to
survive on the web makes me think that your attitude about microformats is:
Microformats are for commercial-purposes first and foremost.
Not
On 4/25/06 1:35 PM, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 25, 2006, Tantek Çelik wrote:
We *want*
resources that can be identified by network location and thus a
system that
shows a bias *for* that is a *good* thing.
Is the proposal that UIDs SHOULD be URLs or UIDs MUST be URLs?
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Tantek Çelik wrote:
ISO8601 is fairly well accepted. The battle is over. So we pick the
current winner and go with it.
Whereas, as you point out, the market for abstract ids, whether ISBN,
pubmed, or whatever is still churning away, so we let it continue to churn.
I
On 4/25/06 3:25 PM, Xiaoming Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Tantek Çelik wrote:
ISO8601 is fairly well accepted. The battle is over. So we pick the
current winner and go with it.
Whereas, as you point out, the market for abstract ids, whether ISBN,
pubmed, or
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Tantek Çelik wrote:
With URI you got all these things free, and you don't have to argue about
persistentence or uniqueness (which are hollow without concrete
schema/mechanism), it's much simpler to directly reference URI RFC.
True. My point is that URL is preferable
On 4/25/06, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be stronger, but it's problematic in many cases.
Then we postpone those cases and focus on the ones that work now.
Except that the thread that got merged into the uid one was, in fact,
about marking up isbns and such, which is one of
On 4/25/06 4:47 PM, Bruce D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, I like Xiaoming's suggestion.
Cool. Please add that comment (with your name/WikiAlias) to Xiaoming's
proposal on the uid-brainstorming page.
Thanks,
Tantek
___
microformats-discuss
On 4/25/06, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, we get things done because we dismiss the 20% in favor of getting the
80% working well.
Except, in this case, you've dismissed the entire problem that we're
trying to solve here by merging into some only quasi-related 80%
case.
I would
On Apr 25, 2006, at 6:47 PM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
FWIW, I like Xiaoming's suggestion.
I'm glad Xiaoming expressed the case for URI so well. I just added it
to the uid-brainstorming [1] page. I have to admit I've seen the need
for a identifying URIs elsewhere and when Tantek pinged
Hello. I'm new to microformats and a bit confused on how one
disambiguates microformat names. It seems to be somewhat related to the
UID/URI issue.
I'm not sure I understand all of the subtleties between the spec and
proposals around these concepts, so I may misuse some of these terms.
I'll
On Apr 24, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Edward Summers wrote:
In light of this I've added http://microformats.org/uid Please feel
free to fill in the gaping holes and add your thoughts!
http://microformats.org/wiki/uid rather
/me gulps coffee
___
On 4/24/06 7:42 AM, Bruce D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/21/06, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as we extracted geo and adr from hCard to address the use cases
brought up the Geo community for a simple format for locations, perhaps we
can extract uid from hCard for this
On 4/24/06, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Third, I actually see disadvantages in using URIs as a basic unit rather
than URLs. URLs are far more useful in that they assert you can go get this
thing, it has a location, most likely on the Web. Thus as a pattern we
should use URLs in
Tantek Çelik wrote to the Microformats Discuss mailing list on
2006-04-24 in “Re: uid microformats? (was Re: [uf-discuss] ISBN
mark-up)” (mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-April/003839.html):
hCard normatively references vCard for semantics
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Etan Wexler wrote:
Tantek Çelik wrote to the Microformats Discuss mailing list on 2006-04-24 in
Re: uid microformats? (was Re: [uf-discuss] ISBN mark-up)
(mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-April/003839.html):
hCard
On 4/21/06 10:08 AM, Edward Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 21, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Perhaps not a microformat, in the sense used here, but I feel that
there
should be some way (or is there already?) for marking up an ISBN
number,
so that it is recognisable as such.
42 matches
Mail list logo
