[uf-discuss] Standardized Representation of Microformats in JSON
/ was: (no subject) & hCardMapper v0.96
danbri at danbri.org
Wed Apr 2 09:13:23 PST 2008
Ciaran McNulty wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Gordon <gordon at onlinehome.de> wrote:
>> One more thing: I am unsure about the plural naming convention I suggested.
> There's very little utility in having the field names reflect their
> plurality - a parser needs to know how to parse each field separately
> anyhow, for most real-world applications. Keeping vCard names is more
> useful than changing them for very little gain.
+1 ...keeping the naming the same (minus punctuation fixes for .js
syntax) makes sense.
I'm happy to see this discussion, as it helps decouple the implicit
abstract data-model of Microformats from the specifics of their use as
an HTML notation. This will make interop with FOAF/RDF system easier for
all of us, I'm sure. For going from FOAF to Microformats btw, I'm
thinking to add annotations into the FOAF schema that indicate the best
corresponding Microformat term. More on that next week, hopefully.
For another JSON representation of Microformat (and FOAF/RDF) data,
don't forget the Google Social Graph API:
Also (while we're cataloguing JSON idioms for this stuff) any mapping of
Microformats into RDF (eg. using GRDDL) will allow it so show up using
the SPARQL resultset format, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-json-res/ ... this is best thought of by
analogy with SQL: it captures tables of query results, with records/rows
and named columns for fields. So the basic JSON structure there remains
the same, regardless of which domain vocabulary is being used.
I'm not advocating for either here, just circulating related work...
All the best,
More information about the microformats-discuss