[microformats-discuss] Evolution vs Intelligent Design
luke.arno at gmail.com
Thu Oct 6 11:28:33 PDT 2005
On 10/6/05, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/05, Luke Arno <luke.arno at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wasn't speaking of evolution within the microformats community. I was
> > referring to evolution of semantics in markup across the Web.
> Hmm, I'm still not convinced.
I'm not trying to sell you anything.
> > It is not just a metaphor. Language is literal evolution. Check out chapter
> > 10 of "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
> Dawkins makes a good case around memes competing for human attention
> in the cultural environment. I'm not so sure about "language is
> literal evolution", or the equivalence of descriptive markup
> (delimited for the benefit of computers) to human languages.
I believe he goes on a bit about birdsong before he dives in to memes.
("Dive in to Memes" - MarkP should write a book :)
This is the bit I was thinking of.
> > I don't even like the phrase "microformats development" for what is
> > happening here. That is why I object to requiring an overarching problem
> > statement for microformats. It is not a development effort at its core.
> > Individual microformats have problem statements but observe step 2
> > in the microformats process.
> > http://microformats.org/wiki/process
> You mean "Document Current Behavior"? I just visited the review
> research cited as an example. I happen to have produced a review
> vocabulary myself, the listing on that page is:
> * RDF Review Vocabulary: http://www.purl.org/stuff/rev
> o Supposedly deployed in FilmTrust
> (http://trust.mindswap.org/FilmTrust/). Unable to verify by going to
> The title is wrong, the vocabulary *is* used in FilmTrust as 5 seconds
> with Google would have verified. Which leaves the link. That's this
> bit of current behaviour documented?
Sounds like you should update the wiki.
> > I do agree with you that a little intelligence and fore site is in
> > order as well.
> > Dawkins writes at the end of the chapter sited above:
> > "We alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of our selfish replicators."
> Yeah, but for a scientist he doesn't half talk about religion a lot.
Did you mean to write:
"Yeah, but for a scientist doesn't he half talk about religion a lot?"
If so, that is ad hominem.
More information about the microformats-discuss