On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Happy-melon <[email protected]> wrote: > Eh? I get the feeling that we're reading from totally different song sheets > here. You seem to be saying here is that you expect the use case to be > 'license templates on steroids': on the image description page, we have > license templates that now emit > microdata/RDF/the-metadata-format-of-the-month, which can be picked up by > whoever is interested.
Right. We know that web spiders are interested in picking up this metadata automatically. > That's not MediaWiki doing anything active with the > data, and it's absolutely no different from marking up infoboxes. In fact, > the usecase for infoboxes is arguably stronger, because their data structure > is more complicated and harder to machine-read otherwise. I'm not clear what your analogy to infoboxes is about. > What I had assumed we meant by "MediaWiki do stuff with metadata" would be > to pick up metadata about an image, and then output that **wherever the > image is used**. So when you view an article with an image, that use of the > image has a metadata cloud that describes where the image is from, what its > license is, whatever. Ah, I see. I don't think we want to do that. There's no end to the amount of metadata you could shove into a page in machine-readable format -- we'd be talking serious markup bloat here if you start adding things on the basis of "someone will surely find it useful". I wouldn't want to add any extra output on every page unless we had a known, concrete use for it. > That usecase is incredibly badly served by just allowing raw metadata in the > image page wikitext; it's really no different to adding categories via a > license template. It's no different, except that RDFa/microdata are relatively standard, so third parties don't have to special-case MediaWiki and can use the same code to figure out licenses on all sites. That's the only advantage. > Again, I don't know which side of the coin you're talking about: switching > the output format is trivial *iff* there's a disjoint between the input and > output. Well, the idea is you could accept microdata as input, and transform it into a different format for output if in the future you decided you didn't like microdata. So you could add the disjointness between input and output at a later date if it's needed then. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
