Re: [uf-discuss] Potential for Microformats.org to work with W3C and RDFa Task Force
Ben Ward wrote: It will take a couple of weeks to give examples of how this will all work, but I wanted to get feedback from this community before proceeding. We have a fantastic opportunity in front of us now - who in this community thinks that we should work with the W3C on this endeavor? I'm not sure I completely see the benefit in this, and seeing your examples would be very helpful in getting a better idea of what you're proposing. I'll get a set of examples written up soon, then. From your bullet points, it seems to suggest taking microformat vocabularies and expressing them in RDFa, rather than HTML? It seems redundant for publishers. No, the markup would still happen in HTML, using Microformat properties, but instead of using @class, we MAY (not MUST) use @typeof, @property, and @content (in the case of machine-readable data) to express Microformats. The key being that these attributes are specifically designed to contain semantic data. Here's a brief example showing how we could get rid of the ABBR design problem by re-using RDFa's @content attribute. Note that this would work in HTML 4.01, XHTML1.1 and XHTML2: div typeof=haudio span property=titleStart Wearing Purple/span by span property=contributorGogol Bordello/span span property=published content=20020514May 14th, 2002/span /div However, I do have a somewhat related issue that you might consider part of this effort. Some discussions I've had lately revealed usefulness in being able to _map_ microformats into RDF, for the purpose of combining microformats with other RDF vocabularies in a back-end somewhere (so, conversion for processing, rather than publishing. Publishing remains in HTML where it is most effective). Publishing would stay in HTML, where it is most effective. Nobody is suggesting that it move elsewhere - RDFa follows the same principles as Microformats in this case. As for the mapping between uF/RDF Vocabularies, I started a page to do just that back in October 2007: http://wiki.digitalbazaar.com/en/Mapping-ufs-to-rdfa Want me to move it to Microformats.org? I'm told that RDF ‘versions’ of vcard and icalendar are out of date compared to the microformats. I don't think they are, but could be mistaken... The last update to VCARD was on 22 February 2001: http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf and the vocabulary: http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0# The last update to iCalendar was on 29 September 2005 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfcal/ and the vocabulary: http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal# As such, it strikes me that rather than maintaining duplicate specifications, it would instead make sense to develop a set of standard transformations so that any microformat can be transformed from HTML to RDF, without requiring duplicate effort to maintain another spec. This I'm sure would relate closely to GRDDL, since that already deals with transformation. Yes, agreed, that would be useful. Note, I'm talking about mapping rules, not separate specs. For example, we have the ‘jCard’ page on the wiki, which I still feel should be more generic ‘JSON Mapping Rules’ page that can cover parsing from any format, not just hcard. We're also working on that in our company, but internally for now. There is the issue of a generic object representation format for semantic data objects. We have a generalized RDF-based representation for RDFa and Microformats now... but didn't think this community would be interested in such a solution. Should a wiki-page be started on various JSON Mapping Rules between uF/RDFa to JSON? -- manu ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Potential for Microformats.org to work with W3C and RDFa Task Force
Scott Reynen wrote: That, or we'd compromise RDFa. I can almost guarantee that neither side is going to compromise their set of beliefs. The Microformats community is too hard headed to do so, and the RDFa community has a very long, arduous W3C process to consider when changing anything major in the RDFa specification. As the two efforts have somewhat divergent priorities, I don't see how we could combine them without compromising on one side or both. Let's give it a shot, give it a number of months, and see if either side feels like they're compromising on anything. I believe that approach is better than saying that it's impossible, throwing up our hands and giving up before we've even started. -- manu ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Potential for Microformats.org to work with W3C and RDFa Task Force
Hello Manu, all Manu I think you need to explain that RDFa is a way of expressing semantics in html, not just a way of expressing RDF annotations in html Manu Sporny wrote: Ben Ward wrote: It will take a couple of weeks to give examples of how this will all work, but I wanted to get feedback from this community before proceeding. We have a fantastic opportunity in front of us now - who in this community thinks that we should work with the W3C on this endeavor? I'm not sure I completely see the benefit in this, and seeing your examples would be very helpful in getting a better idea of what you're proposing. I'll get a set of examples written up soon, then. From your bullet points, it seems to suggest taking microformat vocabularies and expressing them in RDFa, rather than HTML? It seems redundant for publishers. No, the markup would still happen in HTML, using Microformat properties, but instead of using @class, we MAY (not MUST) use @typeof, @property, and @content (in the case of machine-readable data) to express Microformats. Its interesting to point out that most people who publish Microformats, are not really expressing any semantics at all, @class doesn't expresses any semantics without meta data profiles and most publishers do not use them, yes some search engines can pick up hcards and calendar events but really that's about it. any other Microformats are Ignored mostly. The key being that these attributes are specifically designed to contain semantic data. Here's a brief example showing how we could get rid of the ABBR design problem by re-using RDFa's @content attribute. Note that this would work in HTML 4.01, XHTML1.1 and XHTML2: div typeof=haudio span property=titleStart Wearing Purple/span by span property=contributorGogol Bordello/span span property=published content=20020514May 14th, 2002/span /div That is a good example of how microformats could be used in RDFa everything (to me) seems to be in the right place. @typeof can include any root Microformat Class names @property is any Microformat Property name @rel is any microformat rel value Microformats Map pretty well in this way However, I do have a somewhat related issue that you might consider part of this effort. Some discussions I've had lately revealed usefulness in being able to _map_ microformats into RDF, for the purpose of combining microformats with other RDF vocabularies in a back-end somewhere (so, conversion for processing, rather than publishing. Publishing remains in HTML where it is most effective). Publishing would stay in HTML, where it is most effective. Nobody is suggesting that it move elsewhere - RDFa follows the same principles as Microformats in this case. As for the mapping between uF/RDF Vocabularies, I started a page to do just that back in October 2007: http://wiki.digitalbazaar.com/en/Mapping-ufs-to-rdfa Want me to move it to Microformats.org? I think you should Manu, so the rest of the community can read your most excellent work :-) I'm told that RDF ‘versions’ of vcard and icalendar are out of date compared to the microformats. I don't think they are, but could be mistaken... The last update to VCARD was on 22 February 2001: http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf and the vocabulary: http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0# The last update to iCalendar was on 29 September 2005 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfcal/ and the vocabulary: http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal# As such, it strikes me that rather than maintaining duplicate specifications, it would instead make sense to develop a set of standard transformations so that any microformat can be transformed from HTML to RDF, without requiring duplicate effort to maintain another spec. This I'm sure would relate closely to GRDDL, since that already deals with transformation. Yes, agreed, that would be useful. Agreed. Note, I'm talking about mapping rules, not separate specs. For example, we have the ‘jCard’ page on the wiki, which I still feel should be more generic ‘JSON Mapping Rules’ page that can cover parsing from any format, not just hcard. We're also working on that in our company, but internally for now. There is the issue of a generic object representation format for semantic data objects. We have a generalized RDF-based representation for RDFa and Microformats now... but didn't think this community would be interested in such a solution. Should a wiki-page be started on various JSON Mapping Rules between uF/RDFa to JSON? -- manu Best Wishes Martin McEvoy ___ 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
[uf-discuss] Potential for Microformats.org to work with W3C and RDFa Task Force
Hi uFers, RDFa is going to become an official W3C standard in the next 2-3 months. Martin McEvoy had posted something about two weeks ago on the RDFa mailing list stating that he'd like to use RDFa to express Microformats: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Aug/0081.html At first, I dismissed it as something this community would not be interested in, and even if they were, something that the RDFa community wouldn't be interested in doing. Shame on me for assuming without checking with both communities first! Over the past week, I've been thinking about some of the stuff Mark Birbeck (who started the RDFa initiative) said several months ago and what Martin re-iterated in his e-mail two weeks ago: There should be a way to provide Microformats-like markup using RDFa. Afterall, it would solve the unified parser/markup issue that some (both inside and outside this community) have with Microformats. So, I drew together a very quick proposal before the RDFa Task Force meeting this morning: It is possible to use RDFa attributes to replace/enhance usage of the @class attribute and the ABBR design pattern in Microformats. We should be able to do so without introducing the concept of namespaces to the author that is marking up content - keeping the simplicity of Microformats authoring intact. Doing so would provide a unified model of semantics expression between RDFa and Microformats. It would also provide one unified parser that could parse both namespaced RDFa and non-namespaced Microformats. Here's a link to the discussion: http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#item03 The group was very enthusiastic - they would like to work with the Microformats community to address some of these long standing issues in our community. If we are successful in this endeavor, it would mean: - 9 additional parsers that could parse Microformats. - A unified parsing model in addition to the ad-hoc one provided by Microformats. - A full test suite for the unified parsing model. - A unified method of Microformats and RDFa expression in HTML4, XHTML1.1, and XHTML2. - A painless upgrade path from Microformats to RDFa if the author so desired. - A solution to the ABBR accessibility problem. - A solution to the Microformats containment problem (class=item). - A solution to the mfo problem. - A unified method of semantics expression for the web. It will take a couple of weeks to give examples of how this will all work, but I wanted to get feedback from this community before proceeding. We have a fantastic opportunity in front of us now - who in this community thinks that we should work with the W3C on this endeavor? -- 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] Potential for Microformats.org to work with W3C and RDFa Task Force
On 28 Aug 2008, at 12:24, Manu Sporny wrote: It will take a couple of weeks to give examples of how this will all work, but I wanted to get feedback from this community before proceeding. We have a fantastic opportunity in front of us now - who in this community thinks that we should work with the W3C on this endeavor? I'm not sure I completely see the benefit in this, and seeing your examples would be very helpful in getting a better idea of what you're proposing. From your bullet points, it seems to suggest taking microformat vocabularies and expressing them in RDFa, rather than HTML? It seems redundant for publishers. However, I do have a somewhat related issue that you might consider part of this effort. Some discussions I've had lately revealed usefulness in being able to _map_ microformats into RDF, for the purpose of combining microformats with other RDF vocabularies in a back-end somewhere (so, conversion for processing, rather than publishing. Publishing remains in HTML where it is most effective). I'm told that RDF ‘versions’ of vcard and icalendar are out of date compared to the microformats. As such, it strikes me that rather than maintaining duplicate specifications, it would instead make sense to develop a set of standard transformations so that any microformat can be transformed from HTML to RDF, without requiring duplicate effort to maintain another spec. This I'm sure would relate closely to GRDDL, since that already deals with transformation. This latter issue seems valuable, and preferable to a situation where every processor of microformats and RDF comes up with their own incompatible conversions. Note, I'm talking about mapping rules, not separate specs. For example, we have the ‘jCard’ page on the wiki, which I still feel should be more generic ‘JSON Mapping Rules’ page that can cover parsing from any format, not just hcard. If this RDF mapping effort is pursued by anyone, I would again favour ‘RDF Mapping Rules’, rather than ‘rCard’, ‘rCal’ and ‘rListing’ — duplicate specs not based in HTML are not something that this community was founded to produce. Cheers, Ben ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
