On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Justin Karneges <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 19 April 2011 03:27:30 Rob Crowther wrote: >> Justin Karneges wrote: >> > Given that it is meant primarily as a data exchange protocol, explicit is >> > better, so I'm preferring Microdata instead of Microformats here. >> >> The strength of the Microformats community is in helping to define the >> vocabulary, that's a different issue from the format you'll use to >> represent it. > > Ah, I simply assumed these were two competing approaches. Does this mean > Microdata has no community behind it to work on vocabulary?
Microdata is a syntax for encoding vocabularies into an HTML page, similar to how class/rel can be a syntax for encoding vocabularies. The vocabularies themselves can be defined largely ignorant of the encoding syntax, as long as the vocab's underlying data-structure ends up being more-or-less tree-based (vocabularies defined for RDF are officially graph-based, but in practice can usually be treated as tree-based). > In any case, I think the Person object defined by data-vocabulary.org should > work for my purposes. But, if I feel the need to invent something new, I can > propose it to the Microformats community first if that's the right process. I > am quite new to these communities. Sounds acceptable. The Microformats community is friendly and open, as far as I've experienced. Have fun! ~TJ
