3 ms·

> Let's say I want to define my own concept and put it on a web page. Is there even an "official" way to do it right now What's wrong with Microdata? As in htt

> Let's say I want to define my own concept and put it on a web page. Is there even an "official" way to do it right now What's wrong with Microdata? As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdata_(HTML) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdata_(HTML) It can interoperate with RDF and JSON-LD.

gambler 8y ago
First time I hear about it. Let's see. It seems to aim at roughly the same problem, but god, they've managed to design something even uglier and more verbose than XML namespaces. Still requires to use valid URLs instead of GUIds. Still forces you to use external names in your markup. Sigh. One hard limitation I see is that unlike namespaces it doesn't deal with HTML attributes, so you can't just annotate the same tag with unrelated semantics. It also makes assumptions about document structure (item properties are nested inside an item). Semantics and structure should not be complected. This will create innumerable issues when doing logic in code or writing CSS queries. Why does this have to be so ugly and complicated? All we really need is a way to associate data with globally unique identifiers. This gives us semantics. A single layer of indirection (mapping GUIDs to local names of your choice) would allow us to be concise and descriptive in our markup, while avoiding naming conflicts. No matter how much W3C hates it, people are extending HTML with custom tags and attributes. (ng-whatever, for example.) Having no support for providing semantics for such things is pretty ridiculous.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > Still requires to use valid URLs instead of GUIds. Not sure why you would want to do this, but AIUI you can use any URI for a namespace (not just URL), including a UUID via the `urn:uuid:c1a3e0cb-5872-4e5a-8dce-b8afc00772db` syntax.
  - titanix2 8y ago
    You can but most of the time, especially with Linked Data, an URL is required. And sometime even a dereferencable one. So you have this weird situation where you never really know if an URL is "semantic" (just a string actually) or can be accessed. Also having a dependency on the DNS system is a bad idea in my opinion. It's really clear when you read 2 years old semantic web paper and every link is broken. I agree with gambler that GUID + local names is a better solution, and I use that in my research.
    - CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
      I’m thinking IPLD is looking like a great fix for that particular issue. https://ipld.io https://ipld.io
      - zozbot123 8y ago
        It seems rather overengineered to me. IETF and W3C standards do support the general content-addressing, "naming things with hashes" use case via the existing ni:// (Named Information) URI schema (RFC6920).

gambler 8y ago

First time I hear about it. Let's see. It seems to aim at roughly the same problem, but god, they've managed to design something even uglier and more verbose than XML namespaces. Still requires to use valid URLs instead of GUIds. Still forces you to use external names in your markup. Sigh. One hard limitation I see is that unlike namespaces it doesn't deal with HTML attributes, so you can't just annotate the same tag with unrelated semantics. It also makes assumptions about document structure (item properties are nested inside an item). Semantics and structure should not be complected. This will create innumerable issues when doing logic in code or writing CSS queries. Why does this have to be so ugly and complicated? All we really need is a way to associate data with globally unique identifiers. This gives us semantics. A single layer of indirection (mapping GUIDs to local names of your choice) would allow us to be concise and descriptive in our markup, while avoiding naming conflicts. No matter how much W3C hates it, people are extending HTML with custom tags and attributes. (ng-whatever, for example.) Having no support for providing semantics for such things is pretty ridiculous.

zozbot123 8y ago
> Still requires to use valid URLs instead of GUIds. Not sure why you would want to do this, but AIUI you can use any URI for a namespace (not just URL), including a UUID via the `urn:uuid:c1a3e0cb-5872-4e5a-8dce-b8afc00772db` syntax.
- titanix2 8y ago
  You can but most of the time, especially with Linked Data, an URL is required. And sometime even a dereferencable one. So you have this weird situation where you never really know if an URL is "semantic" (just a string actually) or can be accessed. Also having a dependency on the DNS system is a bad idea in my opinion. It's really clear when you read 2 years old semantic web paper and every link is broken. I agree with gambler that GUID + local names is a better solution, and I use that in my research.
  - CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
    I’m thinking IPLD is looking like a great fix for that particular issue. https://ipld.io https://ipld.io
    - zozbot123 8y ago
      It seems rather overengineered to me. IETF and W3C standards do support the general content-addressing, "naming things with hashes" use case via the existing ni:// (Named Information) URI schema (RFC6920).