[uf-discuss] like that in xFolk?
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Wed Oct 26 17:35:47 PDT 2005
On 10/26/05 4:31 PM, "Dr. Ernie Prabhakar" <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
> Hi Tantek,
> On Oct 26, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> On 10/26/05 3:30 PM, "Dr. Ernie Prabhakar" <drernie at opendarwin.org>
>>> Hi Charles,
>>> On Oct 26, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
>>>> So,... I guess what I am saying is that a "rating" Microformat is
>>>> good. But we need something simpler for marking something as being
>>> I think:
>>> <media:rating scheme="urn:mpaa">x</media:rating>
>> Wait, Ernie, wasn't it you that was pushing for URLs over URIs?
> Touche! :-) I didn't say it was good, just close; which leads to...
>>> is the closest and most widely understood equivalent.
>> Um, by what definition of "closest" and/or "understood"?
> Well, the concept of "X-rated" content is relatively well-understood
> globally (compared to the others),
Different cities (heck different states) in the US have totally different
what they call "community standards". Don't even bother trying to
generalize what would be considered "X-rated" in say, Amsterdam vs. say
Riyadh. You could pick any two random world cities and endup with different
definitions, and there are varying court cases (and sheriff arrest records)
to prove this broad variance.
> but I just remembered that it is
> an artificial term (not really MPAA).
> To sure, I would of course
> want it to be a URL a la:
> But, they don't provide good links for each definition. :-(
> The RIAA at least has a more coherent definition of their single-
> valued term:
But does any random person have the authority to use/assert their ratings?
Or can only their ratings board use them? Or only the author/publisher?
>>> Surely there must be a way to say something like that in xFolk?
>> Since I'm not hearing Bud, here is a simple markup of the literal
>> given by Charles Iliya Krempeaux:
>> <div class="xfolkentry">
>> <a class="taggedlink" href="http://example.com/
>> is <a rel="tag"
> Yeah, you're right that the term 'pornographic' is the better match
> for this specific case.
No, not that. The term 'pornographic' is what Charles literally *used*.
Thus I simply did the literal thing and represented what he said. No
reinterpretation or attempt at synonymization.
> However, if the poster was actually asking
> if there was a general-purpose term that might get widespread
> adoption on the web, I think we need something more general.
IMHO: Let folks tag things, and let the terms emerge (folksonomically),
rather than diving into yet another top-down taxonomy rathole.
> My suspicion is that the RSS/Atom community will probably standardize
> on something first
Really? Based on what experience?
> (since they'll mirror the issues that led movies,
> TV, and records to get ratings),
Why would you choose those heavily regulated parallels as opposed to say
*internet* parallels like email, netnews, instant messaging, mp3s, etc.,
none of which have any kind of critical mass of official ratings.
> which hopefully will be something
> simple, clear, and URL-based enough for us to reuse...
I won't hold my breath. I think that such a taxonomic endeavour would be
best left as "outside the scope of the RSS/Atom specifications".
After all, neither effort came up with an official set of "blog post
categories" right? Why is this any different?
Let the people tag the content as they will, and then people can filter in
(or out) as they see fit, not just a narrow set of values/axes based on what
some back room committee came up with.
More information about the microformats-discuss