[uf-new] The Process (was: hAudio case study)

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Wed Sep 12 17:51:43 PDT 2007

On 9/12/07 8:53 AM, "Scott Reynen" <scott at makedatamakesense.com> wrote:

> On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Michael Smethurst wrote:
>> Would it not be better for ufs to standardise markup based on the
>> domain
>> model than waste time wading through flakey html? [Perhaps]
> I don't believe looking at current publishing practices is a waste of
> time at all.  Much the opposite, I think it's the most important part
> of the process.  Domain models that don't account for what is
> published on the real web tend to be less useful on the real web.

You're both right.

Michael, the "gather real world examples" for analysis step of the process
is specifically focusing on the *data* published, and NOT the patterns (or
lack thereof) of markup.

This is why the *-examples step says:

"Document the implicit schemas that the content examples imply."

Every word in that sentence matters.  *implicit* schemas, that is, you have
to look at the *content* of the examples and note what abstract
notions/fields/properties that people are publishing.  That's very
deliberate in that it is MUCH less important (if at all) what flakey html is
being used.

Scott is right in that analysis of current publishing practices helps us
prioritize what problems are worth solving (i.e. there is already
demonstrated incentive for people to publish such information) as opposed to
what problems are purely theoretical, or wishful thinking (e.g. if only
everyone would publish metadata ABC then we could build applications XYZ).

In fact, I have seen this question asked (or this step of the process
misinterpreted regarding example data vs example markup) sufficient times
that I think this merits documentation as an FAQ.  Might as well start with
this one.




More information about the microformats-new mailing list