[uf-discuss] Marking Up Personal Profiles
karl at w3.org
Sun Oct 1 21:32:16 PDT 2006
Le 2 oct. 06 à 12:10, Tantek Çelik a écrit :
> It would be a good start to at least add those URLs as sources for
> information to the profile-examples page.
Just to guarantee that what is *actually used* on the Web is not only
http://fr.meetic.yahoo.net/ - French
http://partner.yahoo.co.jp/ - Japanese
http://cn.personals.yahoo.com/ - Chinese
> It is irrelevant what some sites "may" do. What is relevant is
> what sites
> *actually* do. Do you have any other examples?
Go explore sites in other languages than English, then gather the
results, and you might understand what sites are *actually* and
>> I guess that's an issue with tagging in general, where
>> you get people coming up with dozens of different tags to represent
>> exactly the same concept.
> Actually it's not. With folksonomies, it has been demonstrated
> over and
> over again, that communities tend to converge on tags to mean
> things. Sure
> there are some redundancies but the community typically ends up
> picking a winner and using it. This has been seen on the centralized
> communities of delcious, Flickr, and even with decentralized blog
> post tags
> that Technorati indexes.
Flickr is a site with an English UI, removing/selecting a big part of
people. Something that native English speakers have always hard time
to understand. From a practical experience, many people around me
can't use Flickr because it is in English. Then in an English-
speaking dominated community, yes your tags will be in English.
Flickr is extremely annoying for tags in a non english context.
These are practical problems…
Look at the tag cloud (right) and tell me if it's the one you can
find on Technorati.
reliability, regularity in data build trust. Trust is needed for
people. This is a practical problem.
>> There are advantages to that type of tagging in some cases. But say,
>> for example, you were using a personals search engine looking for
>> brunettes, a search engine should theoretically list people that have
>> used either of those tags.
> Even before personals search engines, there were printed personals,
> "tagging" conventions evolved there for people to quickly/accurately
> describe attributes and wants. You don't need to presolve most of
> problems with a-priori taxonomies/ontologies - the authors of the
> data often
> solve them themselves.
taxonomies/ontologies are rarely made a-priori. There is here a clear
confusion of what is an organization model and the modality of
creating this model. You could perfectly have a taxonomy which is
based on tagging. It is surprising to read this here. Some
ontologies/taxonomies are defined and microformats are using them to
hcard is based on vcard which is a taxonomy.
When Flickr created geotagging by maps, it is a taxonomy as well.
When you enter a zip code in a database and you derived all the
address information, it is from a taxonomy.
Though if you enter a US ZIP code in a Canadian form, it doesn't make
sense, because there are differences.
Anyway, it was just a mail to say that there are practical
differences and that we have a tendency to ignore by the nature of
the working language (English). We remove participation from people
of other languages which could bring the diversity that *really*
exists on the web. We ignore source of information which would help
us to give a real and practical solution.
If there is really a practical problem to solve which is not obvious
> <meta name> is pretty much dead.
Another false assertion :) Try spotlight and you will see.
Fight ideas, not people. Respect the diversity of people (not just
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
More information about the microformats-discuss