[uf-discuss] How about adding aRecipe, an RDFa serialization
msporny at digitalbazaar.com
Thu Oct 9 06:48:47 PDT 2008
Thomas Loertsch wrote:
>> I'm not sure that an RDFa serialization is something that needs
>> endorsement or hosting by microformats.org. Once hRecipe is
>> formalised, RDF/RDFa-based work that uses the hRecipe vocabulary needs
>> no input from microformats.org. The syntax for the RDFa is derived
>> simply from the RDF/OWL model - there's nothing there that needs
>> deciding on.
> There are still things that can go wrong - you confirm that below when you
> propose to draft a mapping and post that as N3-Draft on the web to solicit
> comments. My question is if microformats wouldn't be a good place to do just
> that. It's the question if we need another site, another organisation to
> develop vocabularies and/or serializations in a community-process or if, at
> least if a proposal with a microformats-syntax is already active, can add a
> RDFa-serialization project to it?
Clearly stating the RDFa equivalent of Microformat markup would be
beneficial to website authors. This would also halt duplication of work
in both the Microformats and RDFa communities and thus would be
something that is beneficial to the semantics community at large. We
don't want other communities duplicating work done in this community.
I'd like to point out that hAudio has gone through this already and it
would be really nice if we could clearly state what the RDFa equivalent
of hAudio is without having to host the RDFa vocabulary elsewhere.
What would be even better is a unified syntax for expressing both
Microformats and RDFa, as described here:
If the preceding proposal were pushed forward and adopted, it would mean
that any Microformats vocabulary would automatically be RDFa-izable and
that we would have a unified syntax for expressing both RDFa and
Food for thought.
More information about the microformats-discuss