[uf-new] XFN - Professionals Network microformat
ryan at technorati.com
Thu May 10 13:52:21 PDT 2007
On Apr 27, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Guy Fraser wrote:
> Manu Sporny wrote:
>> I can definitely sympathize with your viewpoints. I don't think the
>> licensing and patenting is a concern, read on...
> It's very much an issue. Let's say your a company and you want to
> use some software. You're told that it's copyrighted - so you
> *need* a license to use that stuff by default. But then you find
> that nobody really owns that copyright - um, that's an odd
> situation. At this point most corporates choose some alternative
> Then you find out that it might be patented, or that there is at
> least intent to patent, but because it's not currently patented you
> cannot guarantee what sort of patent it will go under. Run for the
> trees! What if they patent it and you are using it and then you get
> sued? What if you've made derivative works or if your systems or
> procedures have somehow become dependant on it?
> This stuff can't just be shrugged off. Sorry.
>> I'll be blunt: every community has a group of jerks and a group of
>> people that actually get the work done. While people may seem to be
>> jerk-ish on the list, most of them have good intentions.
> I never said there were any jerks. What I was trying to say is that
> the process used for uF's is inherently closed - eg, using IRC
> where unless you're on there all day every day you have no idea
> what's been discussed, using mediawiki which inherently hides
> content if it's not linked from a page you can find of if you don't
> know what to search for (having to use the random page feature is
> just insane), having to show real-world examples before things will
> even be considered, etc.
If you have suggestions for improving our communication technology,
I'd be glad to hear it.
>> I feel your pain... but, there is a great deal of good to be found in
>> this community.
> Yes, uF community is making some nice stuff. I am worried that the
> process may lead to divergence though - eg. it would seem logical
> to me to have a uF that describes blog posts, comments, pages,
> etc., all in the same format because they all share mostly the same
> data. This would then allow mapping tools, navigation aides, etc.,
> to be far more consistent and easier to develop and maintain. But
> the process effectively forces people to start new uFs for new
> things because they find it so hard to get existing uF's to adapt.
If you have specific feedback about specific formats that are 'hard
to adapt', we should document it, unless that happens, though, it's
hard to do anything about your statements.
More information about the microformats-new