[uf-discuss] rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?

[Chris Messina]

And despite my attempts to explain, as you all have, the origins of
the "romantic" sense of the term, Tara never gave me the benefit of
the doubt, hence the semantic change. ;)

So yes, Tantek, a FAQ entry would certainly be appreciated.

Chris

On 12/10/06, Tara Hunt <horsepigcow at gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting anecdote about this...rel="muse" actually caused a bit of
> a tiff between Chris and I about 6 months back, as he had a bunch of
> women marked up as this...since it was under 'romantic', he agreed to
> change them to 'colleague' and 'friend'.
>
> :) So, there you go...it causes riffs in relationships and
> misunderstandings. LOL
>
> Tara
>
> On 12/10/06, Tantek Çelik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > On 12/10/06 3:42 PM, "Frances Berriman" <fberriman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/12/06, Jason Garber <jason at sixtwothree.org> wrote:
> > >> Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to the mailing list, so apologies if this
> > >> has already been covered.
> > >>
> > >> According to the XFN spec, rel="muse" is a link to someone who inspires
> > >> you, and is listed as being a "romantic" relationship. I was wondering
> > >> if it is always implied as a romantic relationship, since one could
> > >> certainly find someone else inspiring without being romantically
> > >> involved/interested.
> > >>
> > >> I did a cursory search for anyone/anything that covered this, but
> > >> couldn't find anything more specific. Does anyone have any input on
> > >> this? Thanks for your help!
> > >>
> > >> Jason Garber
> > >> jason at sixtwothree.org
> > >
> > > Hey Jason!
> > >
> > > I actually discussed this with Tantek offlist a while ago, just in
> > > passing, as I was curious about this also.  I think the decision made
> > > (by examining uses in the wild) was that muse shouldn't be purely
> > > romantic, as yes - many people mean it in a platonic way.  I think
> > > it's something that the XFN documentation could do with clarifying.
> > > Having it understood as purely romantic is much too restrictive, imho.
> > > So - use it as you see fit.
> >
> > Certainly "muse" was not intended to only be purely romantic in the literal
> > "romantic relationship" sense (though it is clear how that could easily be
> > misconstrued), and of course that meaning is included.
> >
> > The categorization as "romantic" is in a broader sense, similar to
> > romanticism [1] as in enabling the elevation of:
> >
> > "the achievements of what it [Romanticism] perceived as misunderstood heroic
> > individuals and artists that altered society."
> >
> > or romance the genre [2]
> >
> > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism
> > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_%28genre%29
> >
> > That the first specific section in [1] is on music only echoes what Ben West
> > wrote as well.
> >
> > Is this worthy of an xfn-faq entry?
> >
> > Tantek
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > microformats-discuss mailing list
> > microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
> >
>
>
>
> --
> tara 'miss rogue' hunt
> agent provocateur
> Citizen Agency (www.citizenagency.com)
> blog: www.horsepigcow.com
> phone: 415-694-1951
> fax: 415-727-5335
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>


-- 
Chris Messina
Citizen Provocateur &
  Open Source Ambassador-at-Large
Work: http://citizenagency.com
Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog
Cell: 412 225-1051
Skype: factoryjoe
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private