[uf-discuss] XPN: Xhtml Professional Network - idea

[Ben Buchanan]

Hi there,

> Secondly, I joined because of XPN, an 'XHTML Professionals Network'
> microformat. I thought this up at the end of December, and tried to

Well my immediate question is why not simply extend XFN? Really XFN
represents a small subset of all possible social relationships; and I
can think of problems trying to separate friends and professional
relationships - especially in the web industry.

Case in point: my XFN blogroll includes people who are both friends
and clients. I'm not going to double up my blogroll :)

I'd rather see a single "relationships" microformat which incorporates
XFN and XPN.

> I imagined the XPN as a way to define client/developer (rel="client",
> rel="developer") relationships, and built from there. For example, add
> freelancer to it (rel="developer freelancer") or define what part you
> did on the website (rel="client sliced", rel="client design")

In my view, there is no difference in the *business* relationship
between the designer+client and the developer+client - they are both
providing a service to the client. Both the designer and developer
would classify the client as "client" when linking to them.

To put it another way, you have to be careful about whether you're
defining the *relationship* or the job title (which would be better
placed in an hCard).

> An XPN could be expanded to other business sectors as well, but it seems
> smart to start with the web development one.

I don't see an immediate need to create a microformat specific to
professional relationships in the web industry. They are after *just
business relationships*, the subject matter doesn't change them :) I
suppose it does depend on just how granular you want to get; but off
the top of my head I can think of: client, partner, competitor,
employer, employee, boss, worker... none of these roles are specific
to any business.

I suppose if you ultimately wanted to specify down to specific job
titles, you'd need to separate industries - but that would be
impractical to say the least :)

> I don't know if an XPN should be part of XFN or next to it. I would say
> next to it, because it's a different thing. But you could also argue
> that it's a continuation of XFN and as such, should be part of it.

My vote is definitely that it should be part of XFN - possibly
requiring a name change of course, but it should all be part of one
uf.

Just my humble opinion of course.

cheers,

Ben

-- 
--- <http://www.200ok.com.au/>
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson