[uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats

[David Janes]

Why should RDFa get to mooch of the reputation that microformats has
developed over the last 24 months? That reputation was developed by a
lot of hard work by a lot of people (and really hard work by a few).

What has RDFa brought to the table?

Like microformats, RDFa wants to carry inline machine readable data
with human readable data.  Beyond this? It models data in a way that
no one uses, to solve problems no one has, in a way that no one can
find a use for [1][2].

The best part about microformats (IMHO) is not the class and rel and
abbr stuff, but the fact that it deliberately constrains itself to
real problems that people are actually having.

Regards, etc...
David

[1] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rdf+applications&btnG=Google+Search
[2] http://programmableweb.com/apis

On 12/6/06, S. Sriram <ssriram at gmail.com> wrote:

> That's right, I think that what RDFa does is hint at realising the
> potential that microformats (in general) offer (to institutions),
> which 'microformats.org'
> with its inherent (and probably valid) limitations stops short of.
>
> Maybe, thinking of RDFa as microformats (in general) and
> microformats.org/microformats as microfortmatted-objects (in particular)
> might
> help understand this relationship better.
>