[uf-discuss] eRDF <=> microformats?

Elias Torres elias at torrez.us
Thu Jun 1 17:53:59 PDT 2006

On 6/1/06, Ryan King <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> > I apologize if this might be off-topic, but I'm honestly curious
> > and would like to understand this better:
> >
> > http://www.bnode.org/archives2/58
> >
> > eRDF:
> > (+) follows the microformats principles
> >
> > http://research.talis.com/2005/erdf/wiki/Main/RdfInHtml
> >
> > From my admittedly naive perspective, eRDF looks like it *could* be
> > used in a way that is compatible with microformats.  That is, not
> > *all* eRDF schemas and documents *are* necessarily microformats,
> > but many of them _could_ be.  Conversely, it seems like _most_
> > microformats could be described using eRDF schemas.
> I depends on what you mean by "microformats."
> I know the term has evolved and changed over time and that people use
> it with many different shades of meaning. I'm fine with some
> slipperiness, as that's just how human language works.
> However, there's one bit of confusion/misundertand that really does
> bother me.  There seems to be this mistaken understanding that
> microformats are just "using the class attribute, oh and sometimes
> rel and rev too".
> Microformats are more than just semantic class names. They're a
> process, they're a style, they're an approach.
> I understand people's desire to microformatted data into RDF, but I
> don't believe that  embedding RDF into HTML is the answer, I think
> RDF itself is the problem–
> RDF's model is too complex for many people to understand and there's
> nothing wrong with that- most people don't need to understand it.
> However, I think there's an easier, more effective, lower-cost way of
> bridging the two groups- GRDDL [http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec].
> Let people publish easy, simple microformats, then you guys can
> convert it to RDF. What's so wrong with that? I mean, it *works today*.

Thank you very much for your answer Ryan. I might say that DanC (and
so do I) agrees with your statements as well and prolly that's why
he's been working on profile URLs so we can attach transformation
links to each of the microformats. I agree that the microformats way
of living is good for everyone since it's more semantics that what we
originally started with, so it's all good. My only fear was mostly
towards the future and how people will twist them in very ugly ways
and maybe RDFa/eRDF aspects (like namespacing) could help, but then
again maybe they can't.


> -ryan_______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list