[uf-new] XFN - Professionals Network microformat

Ryan King ryan at technorati.com
Thu May 10 13:49:21 PDT 2007

On Apr 27, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Guy Fraser 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.
>> 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.
>>> It is not clear _who_ owns the copyright or patent. Is it
>>> microformats.org, one of the authors, technorati, etc?
>> 3. Licensing and patenting issues...
>> Technorati doesn't own microformats.  I believe most 'formats show a
>> CC declaration on the appropriate wiki page.
> Yup, that's a show stopper for most corporates. A cc-by-nd* is a  
> killer - if you can't make derivative works, game over. Even a cc- 
> by is a show stopper for most corporates because lots of banks,  
> etc., generally have an internal policy that prevents them using  
> anything along the lines of the GPL, cc-by, etc.

First, it's the specifications that would be licensed under CC, not  
the format itself.

Second, Your assertion that ND specifications won't work for  
'corporates', while possible true, is unfounded here. As someone who  
hasn't worked in corporate environments it would be helpful if you  
could more clearly explain the objections (in concrete terms with  


More information about the microformats-new mailing list