[uf-discuss] xFolk thoughts

[Brian Suda]

On 8/27/06, Tantek Çelik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Brian, based on what real world link tagging examples do you think there
> should be a date in xFolk?

--- yes, the example on the wiki which xFolk was derived has a date
(which was not used for some reason). Ma.gnolia, del.icio.us, any
linkroll in a blog post, de.lirio.us, and technorati (in the form of
... posted 23 days ago), scuttle, all use dates. These were mentioned
in Bud's original schema post
(http://thecommunityengine.com/home/archives/2005/04/xfolk_schema_fo.html#more)
where he extracted the implied schema. Date was not part of that
implied schema for some reason... which lead me to my next question.

> > Maybe there was a reason to leave-off any sort of date, can someone clarify?
>
> Other way around.
>
> We don't need any reason to leave off anything.  Things are left out by
> default.

--- i completely agree with the idea of leaving things off by default.
It seems to me that Date-time IS part of the implied schema - i was
not part of these original discussions so maybe someone had a very
good argument NOT to keep this in.

> There needs to be a good justification to put things in, starting with being
> part of the 80/20 implied schema of existing use in real world examples
> published on the *Web*.

i completely agree, but of the examples cited, more than 80% seem to
have some sort of date stamp.

Using your suggestion of nesting an hReview would help add semantics
such as 'dtreviewed', but this doesn't seem to help if i am building a
simple relational database that maps to xFolk. If my parser is
'stupid' and only looking for instances of xFolk and xFolk properties
it doesn't matter what microformats are embedded inside it is
oblivious to them. Once things are aggregated and removed from their
original context we loose the surrounding semantics.

-brian

-- 
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk