[uf-discuss] class names and uniqueness - hAtom

[Tantek Ç elik]

On 10/25/05 9:24 PM, "Dr. Ernie Prabhakar" <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:

> Hi Tantek,
> 
> On Oct 25, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> And as for making things more generic, I'd say, at first, don't.
> 
> I can accept that as a good starting point.  But, that raises the
> question: what comes after "at first?"

Adoption.


> For example, I think Danny's done a great job of solving the specific
> problem in question.

David Janes actually.

> But now that he's done it, that same pattern:
> * title(s)
> * author
> * content
> * summary/description
> * link(s)
> 
> appears to recur in:
> 
> * S5 slides
> * Classified ads
> * Card catalogs
> * Abstracts

That's a good reason to pick generic names based on prior microformats for
those properties/fields.

E.g. even with xFolk, we changed the "extended" property to "description" to
reuse that field from hCalendar and hReview.

The the only thing that differs is the root class name for the specific
microformat, which is ok.


> It sure seems like there's something ur-pattern behind all these
> things which is being articulated in slightly different ways.   Does
> it really make sense to create five different microformats?

We can't know without trying them out in practice.

Certainly if we converge the common building blocks, or reuse properties
from pre-existing microformats, that's a good thing as it limits the overall
growth of microformat conceptual building blocks.


> I realize there's a danger here of forcing dissimilar objects into
> the same mold,

Yes, or worse, getting trapped in endless rathole/theoretical discussions
about abstract generic concepts (witness how long Dublin Core discussions
went on).

> and maybe this discussion is premature without more in-
> depth research. But, given at least the possibility of an ur-pattern,
> what is the optimal process for discovering it?

To some extent, trial and error.  Look at earlier microformats as examples.

Thanks,

Tantek