There's been some misinformation about microformats spread at AccBristol, specifically:
For the sake of daftness, I'm going to show how to do this. I'm going to take the 2nd example of BroadcastService, about In Our Time and give a microformats2 markup for the arbitrary schema vocab.
Immediately, there is some confusion as the various examples given don't match (the JSON-LD is missing all of the episode name information, and has misparsed the dates as text; the microdata and RDFa have injected lots of extra div's that will relayout the page) but I'll see if I can match the microdata/RDFa examples:
<aproperty="url"href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4"><spanproperty="name">BBC Radio 4</span></a>
</div> at
<spanproperty="startDate"
content="2013-11-07T09:00:00+01:00">09:00, 7th of November 2013</span>
</div>,
available online from
<divproperty="publication"typeof="OnDemandEvent">
<spanproperty="startDate"
content="2013-11-07T09:45:00+01:00">09:45 on the same day</span>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<scripttype="application/ld+json">
{
"@context":"http://schema.org",
"@type":"RadioSeries",
"episode":{
"@type":"RadioEpisode",
"position":"604",
"publication":[
{
"@type":"BroadcastEvent",
"publishedOn":{
"@type":"BroadcastService",
"url":"http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4"
},
"startDate":"09:00, 7th of November 2013"
},
{
"@type":"OnDemandEvent",
"startDate":"09:45 on the same day"
}
],
"url":"http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ggc19"
},
"url":"http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl"
}
</script>
Things to note here:
I've prefixed the schema-specific properties as a vendor vocabulary ie h-schema-RadioSeries rather then h-RadioSeries to show it's an extension that hasn't been through the microformats process
The Microformats JSON is parsed directly from the HTML, and will be consistent across parsers in differentlanguages. Whereas the JSON-LD is a separate DRY violating piece of data that goes out of sync with the information in the page (as the example from schema.org shows - not sure if that is a parsing failure or poor manual updating)
The jf2 version of the parsed microformats is more compact than the direct version by embedding single-valued properties directly, not as a list - this is derived from the microformats version, and is close to what a correct JSON-LD form would be.
The Microformats markup is more compact than either Microdata or RDFa because of the implied url and name properties.
Nesting other types inside a property is much more compact than microdata and simpler than RDFa
Tantek Çelik: I added a few things to the wiki - Indiewebcamp 2015 is only 10 day away in Portland Oregon and Brighton England barcamp was put together in fewer than 10 days so we could still add more cities Karthik Prabhu has put together custom style and script per post for his site. This sin something silos don't let you do what would it mean to put that kind of custom style/script in a post that a Reader could pull out and present to the user? There's lots of things indieweb users can do on their own si
tl;dr: It's easy enough to support microformats v2 (and even backcompat for v1) and they don't/shouldn't create any conflicts so why not support them out of the box?
I think that a forward-looking platform like Auttomatic should definitely be supporting (and perhaps even iterating internally) on microformats2, particularly since they're simple added classes that give semantic meaning to the massive amounts of data that are put on the web via the platform. This makes them much more valuable to end users of
OK, let me try this a different way. What problem are you trying to solve? You like rdf as an abstraction, which is fair enough. Do you want to turn information marked up as microformats into rdf so you can link it to data you already have?
you are reacting to a remark I made about "other" vocabularies and microformats not really having that concept in the same way RDFS/OWL does (i.e. term reconciliation via rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:subPropertyOf, owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty, owl:sameAs) am I wrong?