[uf-new] workofart

[Manu Sporny]

Ottevanger, Jeremy wrote:
> In the
> last few days there have been some posts around the idea of a Dublin
> Core microformat, which idea has been pretty much dismissed or ignored,

I think there is more support for re-using DC terms than you might
think. As Danny stated, there is "an existing (community) convention to
be found in Embedded RDF (eRDF)", namely - prefixing "dc-" before each term.

If we want to re-use Dublin Core, we should adopt that thinking.

Don't let the loud opposition of a few members in the community lead you
to believe that there is no support for DC in this community. I should
point out that hAudio RDFa makes heavy re-use of Dublin Core:

http://wiki.digitalbazaar.com/en/hAudio_RDFa

> I'm still bemused, though, that the broadly applicable seems to be
> rejected in favour of the narrow. As I understand it, new microformats
> should where possible build upon existing uFs, but if these start off
> very narrow rather than generic then it makes it that much more awkward
> to do this - which it strikes me is the root of most of the problems in
> the hAudio debate. Had there been more broadly-aimed uFs to build it
> upon then rows over the meaning of "title" or "contributor" might never
> have arisen. 

Yes, that's true. It's a shame that we waste so much time convincing
others of things that are openly accepted in other communities - things
like the semantic meaning of "title".

-- manu