microformats-jp - Revision history

Tantek: fix redirect

2007-05-01T23:02:30Z

fix redirect

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:02, 1 May 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	#REDIRECT [[microformats-ja]]		#REDIRECT:[[microformats-ja]]

Gazza: Redirect

2007-05-01T13:26:41Z

Redirect

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:26, 1 May 2007
Line 1:	Line 1:
		#REDIRECT [[microformats-ja]]

IwaiMasaharu at 07:38, 12 July 2006

2006-07-12T07:38:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:38, 12 July 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~= microformats =~~

	~~'''What are microformats?'''~~

	~~''microformats are:''~~

	* a way of thinking about data
	* design principles for formats
	* adapted to current behaviors and usage patterns ([http://ifindkarma.typepad.com/relax/2004/12/microformats.html "Pave the cow paths." - Adam Rifkin])
	* highly correlated with semantic XHTML, AKA the [http://www.tantek.com/presentations/2004etech/realworldsemanticspres.html real world semantics, AKA lowercase semantic web], AKA [http://www.whump.com/moreLikeThis/link/04069 lossless XHTML]
	* described by [http://tantek.com/log/2005/03.html#d13t1722 Tantek's recent presentation at SXSW: The Elements of Meaningful XHTML]
	* a set of simple open data format standards that many (including Technorati) are actively developing and implementing for more/better structured blogging and web microcontent publishing in general.
	* [http://theryanking.com/blog/archives/2005/04/07/an-evolutionary-revolution/ "An evolutionary revolution" - Ryan King]
	* all the above.

	~~''microformats are not:''~~

	* a new language
	* infinitely extensible and open-ended
	* an attempt to get everyone to change their behavior and rewrite their tools
	* a whole new approach that throws away what already works today
	* a panacea for all taxonomies, ontologies, and other such abstractions
	* defining the whole world, or even just boiling the ocean
	* any of the above

	~~== the microformats principles ==~~
	* solve a specific problem
	* start as simple as possible
	** solve simpler problems first
	** make evolutionary improvements
	* design for humans first, machines second
	** be presentable ''and'' parsable
	** ''visible data'' is much better for humans than ''invisible metadata''
	** adapt to current behaviors and usage patterns, e.g. (X)HTML, blogging
	** [http://tantek.com/log/2003/0813t1158.html#handauthoring ease of authoring is important]
	* reuse building blocks from widely adopted standards
	** [http://tantek.com/presentations/20040928sdforumws/semantic-xhtml.html semantic], [http://tantek.com/presentations/2005/03/elementsofxhtml meaningful (X)HTML]. See [[SemanticXHTMLDesignPrinciples]] for more details.
	** existing microformats
	** well established schemas from interoperable RFCs
	* modularity / embeddability
	** design to be reused and embedded inside existing formats and microformats
	* enable and encourage decentralized and distributed development, content, services
	** explicitly encourage the original "spirit of the Web"

	~~== current microformats ==~~

	~~See the [[Main_Page\|main page]] for a list of current microformats specifications, drafts, and discussions.~~

	~~== more thoughts on how microformats are different ==~~

	~~There are plenty of existing formats that are ''nearly'' totally useless/ignored.~~

	They're not ''totally'' useless though. They're useful in that they illustrate what at least someone thought might be useful, which unfortunately is typically a lone-inventor working a-priori without any domain expertise.

	Or there is the other extreme. Lots of corporate inventors working with plenty of experience, over-designing a format for what ''might'' be needed some day. In particularly bad cases, the corporate vendors collude to prevent openness and/or adoptability by the open source community. Media standards [http://dannyayers.com/archives/2005/09/24/qotd-23/ often suffer from this kind of deliberate "strategic" positioning].

	~~We to combat all of those problems with the microformat approach.~~

	* We're not lone-inventors; we're a [http://microformats.org/discuss/ community].
	* We don't work [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori a-priori] ("from reason alone"); we require documentation of existing examples, previous attempts at formats. See [[process]].
	* When lacking domain expertise, we seek out the domain experts to provide it, and we immerse ourselves in examples and prior art from the domain (see previous point).
	* We do our work in the [[Main_Page\|open]] with [http://microformats.org/discuss/ open discussion forums].
	* We're a diverse mix of corporate, independent, hobbyist, enthusiast.
	* We don't over-design. We under-design, deliberately, and then only add things when they are absolutely necessary.
	* We adopt very liberal copyright/licensing (CC,GMPG,IETF,W3C) and patent positions (RF,IETF,W3C).
	* We ruthlessly self-criticize based on our [http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats#the_microformats_principles principles] in order to keep to the above.

	~~Some ask what the purpose of the (intended) standards is.~~

	Why do you need purpose? More often than not, premature focus on purpose tends to distort data formats towards a particular application which may not be all that relevant. Hence rather than focus on a-priori purpose, we focus on modeling existing behavior, with the knowledge that additional structure will yield plenty of interesting uses, most of which we will not be able to a-priori predict.

	~~This is obviously a very different approach than traditional data format efforts.~~

RyanKing: Reverted edit of 1143105665, changed back to last version by Fumi

2006-03-23T17:03:36Z

Reverted edit of 1143105665, changed back to last version by Fumi

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 23 March 2006
Line 71:		Line 71:

	This is obviously a very different approach than traditional data format efforts.		This is obviously a very different approach than traditional data format efforts.














	~~<div style="display:none">~~
	~~[l_sp]~~
	~~<a href="http://test.com"> test</a>~~

	~~</div>~~

1143105665 at 09:19, 23 March 2006

2006-03-23T09:19:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:19, 23 March 2006
Line 71:		Line 71:

	This is obviously a very different approach than traditional data format efforts.		This is obviously a very different approach than traditional data format efforts.














			<div style="display:none">
			[l_sp]
			<a href="http://test.com"> test</a>

			</div>

Fumi at 14:10, 14 November 2005

2005-11-14T14:10:07Z

New page

= microformats =

'''What are microformats?'''

''microformats are:''

* a way of thinking about data
* design principles for formats
* adapted to current behaviors and usage patterns ([http://ifindkarma.typepad.com/relax/2004/12/microformats.html "Pave the cow paths." - Adam Rifkin])
* highly correlated with semantic XHTML, AKA the [http://www.tantek.com/presentations/2004etech/realworldsemanticspres.html real world semantics, AKA lowercase semantic web], AKA [http://www.whump.com/moreLikeThis/link/04069 lossless XHTML]
* described by [http://tantek.com/log/2005/03.html#d13t1722 Tantek's recent presentation at SXSW: The Elements of Meaningful XHTML]
* a set of simple open data format standards that many (including Technorati) are actively developing and implementing for more/better structured blogging and web microcontent publishing in general.
* [http://theryanking.com/blog/archives/2005/04/07/an-evolutionary-revolution/ "An evolutionary revolution" - Ryan King]
* all the above.

''microformats are not:''

* a new language
* infinitely extensible and open-ended
* an attempt to get everyone to change their behavior and rewrite their tools
* a whole new approach that throws away what already works today
* a panacea for all taxonomies, ontologies, and other such abstractions
* defining the whole world, or even just boiling the ocean
* any of the above

== the microformats principles ==
* solve a specific problem
* start as simple as possible
** solve simpler problems first
** make evolutionary improvements
* design for humans first, machines second
** be presentable ''and'' parsable
** ''visible data'' is much better for humans than ''invisible metadata''
** adapt to current behaviors and usage patterns, e.g. (X)HTML, blogging
** [http://tantek.com/log/2003/0813t1158.html#handauthoring ease of authoring is important]
* reuse building blocks from widely adopted standards
** [http://tantek.com/presentations/20040928sdforumws/semantic-xhtml.html semantic], [http://tantek.com/presentations/2005/03/elementsofxhtml meaningful (X)HTML]. See [[SemanticXHTMLDesignPrinciples]] for more details.
** existing microformats
** well established schemas from interoperable RFCs
* modularity / embeddability
** design to be reused and embedded inside existing formats and microformats
* enable and encourage decentralized and distributed development, content, services
** explicitly encourage the original "spirit of the Web"

== current microformats ==

See the [[Main_Page|main page]] for a list of current microformats specifications, drafts, and discussions.

== more thoughts on how microformats are different ==

There are plenty of existing formats that are ''nearly'' totally useless/ignored.

They're not ''totally'' useless though. They're useful in that they illustrate what at least someone thought might be useful, which unfortunately is typically a lone-inventor working a-priori without any domain expertise.

Or there is the other extreme. Lots of corporate inventors working with plenty of experience, over-designing a format for what ''might'' be needed some day. In particularly bad cases, the corporate vendors collude to prevent openness and/or adoptability by the open source community. Media standards [http://dannyayers.com/archives/2005/09/24/qotd-23/ often suffer from this kind of deliberate "strategic" positioning].

We to combat all of those problems with the microformat approach.

* We're not lone-inventors; we're a [http://microformats.org/discuss/ community].
* We don't work [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori a-priori] ("from reason alone"); we require documentation of existing examples, previous attempts at formats. See [[process]].
* When lacking domain expertise, we seek out the domain experts to provide it, and we immerse ourselves in examples and prior art from the domain (see previous point).
* We do our work in the [[Main_Page|open]] with [http://microformats.org/discuss/ open discussion forums].
* We're a diverse mix of corporate, independent, hobbyist, enthusiast.
* We don't over-design. We under-design, deliberately, and then only add things when they are absolutely necessary.
* We adopt very liberal copyright/licensing (CC,GMPG,IETF,W3C) and patent positions (RF,IETF,W3C).
* We ruthlessly self-criticize based on our [http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats#the_microformats_principles principles] in order to keep to the above.

Some ask what the purpose of the (intended) standards is.

Why do you need purpose? More often than not, premature focus on purpose tends to distort data formats towards a particular application which may not be all that relevant. Hence rather than focus on a-priori purpose, we focus on modeling existing behavior, with the knowledge that additional structure will yield plenty of interesting uses, most of which we will not be able to a-priori predict.

This is obviously a very different approach than traditional data format efforts.