[uf-new] XFN - Professionals Network microformat

Brian Suda brian.suda at gmail.com
Fri Apr 27 07:42:25 PDT 2007

On 4/27/07, Guy Fraser <gfraser at adaptavist.com> wrote:
> Frances Berriman wrote:
> >
> > What would you envision doing with supplier/client etc. type
> > relationships?
> In corporate environments, professional relationships need to be more
> descriptive so that managers can more easily locate suitable staff for
> projects. Eg. You could quickly build up a team that has worked with a
> particular customer/supplier/project before.

--- while i would agree that there are needs for finer grained
control, if no one is publishing this data, why would the existence of
a new microformat change this? we need to model real-world publishing

> > 2. Issues with existing XFN rel's...
> >
> > We discussed this in IRC a while back (I don't have time to dig
> > through the logs) but it was pretty much the consensus that muse IS
> > mis-categorised as romantic and should be (and is already used as) a
> > non-romantic relationship to describe anyone who is of inspiration
> > etc.  The current problem is only that the documentation hasn't been
> > updated to reflect this better (probably will be done when/if XFN gets
> > updated as a whole).
> As the discussions in IRC aren't logged anywhere (or even pasted in to
> the wiki as far as I can tell) there is no record of that information.
> Anyone working with XFN would generally be unaware of the future
> direction. Again, it's all very closed.

--- they are logged, you can view and search them from here:

> Not knowing who even owns the copyright is another show stopper because
> there's no way any legal department would allow that through.
> The legal issues with microformats will prevent them from being used in
> a large number of corporate environments.

--- i think that large corporations like Yahoo!, BBC and others that
are ALREADY using microformats have had their legal teams consider
this. It wasn't a show stopper for them - i would hope that i wouldn't
be for others either. You can certainly use them as an example when
explaining that OTHER large companies have already evaluated their
usefulness and weighed in on the options.

> > To get corporates to try something, they need to see that others are
> That's not going to happen with seriously dodgey licensing and patenting
> stuff on must uF's.

--- again, several large companies including microsoft have expressed
interest in microformats.

> It's not about whether they are behind the times or not - the really big
> problem in the ambiguous copyright and patent statements, compounded by
> the prevention of making derivative works, etc.

--- is this a REAL problem, or do people keep bring this up as a
THEORETICAL issue? has anyone specifically been denied the use of
microformats from their company due to our liberal copyright? or are
people trying to make excuses or something else?


brian suda

More information about the microformats-new mailing list