[uf-discuss] Re: [uf-new] Mapping Microformats to RDFa

Michael Smethurst Michael.Smethurst at bbc.co.uk
Mon Oct 15 06:56:05 PDT 2007

On 13/10/07 10:36, "Tom Morris" <tom at tommorris.org> wrote:

> On 10/12/07, Manu Sporny <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>> Great! Where are they? Are the transformations only available as XSL
>> stylesheets? If so, they're not very useful as a quick-reference for
>> publishers... are they?
> Brian is referring to the RDFa folks rewriting microformats in RDFa, which
> seems like a non-optimal route to take - it's much better to publish
> microformats in the microformat syntax, and then use the profile attribute to
> point GRDDL processors in the right direction. Publishing microformats as
> RDFa seems like a terrific way to ensure that only RDFa tools can read them.
> Follow current practice and all that... ;)

All fine if your intention is just to produce rdf (a noble thing in itself)

There seem to be 2 sets of criticism of this work:

1. It's not a definitive mapping to rdf-a - just a very reduced set of rdf-a
markup. But unless GRDDL does more than just glean then it too is only going
to produce a reduced set rdf representation. It's not going to take a
contact:fn and know it's a mo:MusicGroup or a mo:MusicArtist. So the same
limitations apply to Manu's work as apply to GRDDL - you can only glean
what's there

2. It duplicates work between ufs and rdf-a. Probably true but... As above I
don't think it's anyone's intention to map ufs to fully expressive rdf-a.
The work required by both publishers and consumers would be too much. Rather
it seems like an attempt to map the simple models of ufs onto the goodness
of rdf-a. So just rdf-a flavoured microformats (or nana-formats given the
flexibility of rdf - sorry). What it does buy us is namespaces and that,
imho, is a GOOD THING and missing from ufs

I am in no way criticising microformats and the work done here - it's all
really cool and works for 80% of users in 80% of cases. Adding namespaces
might just make it work for another 10%.

Apologies if I'm putting words/opinions in the mouth of Manu - not my

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list