[no sig]RE: [uf-new] Dublin Core (was: hAudio FN or Title)

[Tom Morris]

On Feb 5, 2008 10:25 AM, Ottevanger, Jeremy
<JOttevanger at museumoflondon.org.uk> wrote:
> Thank you David, that's very interesting. It would fill a pretty
> important gap in describing basic phenomena - time, place, and agents
> have their uF but not things, in the general sense. Even the simplest
> container, DC questions aside, would be a very useful step.
>

I think this approach of having a generic 'thing' in microformats is
probably not one that is consistent with the principles of
microformats. It steps too far away from documents and too far into
the abstract. There already exists a format for describing 'things' -
RDF and OWL. owl:Thing is the implicit superclass for all classes in
OWL, and RDF allows you to describe resources that point to 'things'
in a more abstract sense. This is all fine, and you can use eRDF/RDFa
to represent this more abstract semantic model in HTML - but for ease
of authorship, the whole point of Microformats is that they are
simpler than this and represent common uses.

If you want to represent 'things', may I suggest you work on using
consistent HTML semantics between pages and then maybe model that to a
custom RDF model using GRDDL. If the HTML model you use is worth
reusing across a bulk of websites, then perhaps suggest that as a
microformat.

-- 
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/