This page is for brainstorming about ideas, proposals, constraints, requirements for a Groups microformat.
See Chris Messina's original thoughts on microformats-discuss.
Not every page belongs to one user. We need a microformat to define a group of people.
There are two distinct problems here though.
The problem that Chris's proposal describes is actually just one of tagging. By tagging people with the same tag, you "place" them into a group as defined by that tag. That's the model presented by Chris's ASCII art diagram.
The simpler problem to solve is perhaps the Group equivalent of XFN
How does a person indicate that they belong to of a group?
How does a group indicate that a person is a member of that group?
--Group Name | Description | Tags | +--+ Members | | | +-- Member 1 (hcard) | | | +-- Member 2 (hcard) | +--+ Pool | +--+ Topic | +-- Post 1 (hatom) | +-- Post 2 (hatom)
This model is totally overdesigned. A groups microformat should start as simple as possible, meaning, nothing but the idea of a group and members. That's the 80% in common case across various systems. People in a group. A group with people. Nothing more. -Tantek
Add optional roles. Groups may have "admins", "moderators", or "members". Or if you were marking up a contributes page, you could have "programmers", "designers", etc. Is this what you mean by tags? - Josh
No, those are roles. I mean the very *name* of a group could be interpreted simply as a tag on a person.
For example a named group of bookmarks are nothing more than a tag that all those bookmarks share.
Any taxonomy of group roles (admins, moderators, etc.) should be postponed.
Real World Examples
- microformats | People - Contributers to a project should be marked up.
- Ma.gnolia Groups
- Flickr Groups
Groups could define there members on their own homepage. Social web sites could pick up the group list from the groups site instead. You'd instantly have your group on every (dreaming) social web service.