5 ms·

The Downward Spiral of Microdata

30 points by AliCollins 12y ago

csdrane 12y ago
Site is down for me. Anyone have a mirror?
- profil 12y ago
  Down for me too. Found this: http://web.archive.org/web/20140719161748/http://manu.sporny.org/2013/microdata-downward-spiral/ http://web.archive.org/web/20140719161748/http://manu.sporny...
  - agumonkey 12y ago
    Thanks. @pg do you think having automatic archived mirrors linked on all submission would be detrimental to linked articles ?
    - kator 12y ago
      The slashdot[1] effect has been around for a long time. Auto mirroring would be nice but at the same time it leaves a lot of open questions about content ownership, ability of the content owner to edit, monetize etc. The New York Times would not be happy if HN links were automatically mirrored and I imagine they'd be quick to protect their rights on that front. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdotted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdotted
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        If not auto-mirror then at least links to Google Cache and Webarchive in the interface would probably be welcome.
        sp332 12y ago
        You could install Resurrect Pages https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/resurrect-pages/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/resurrect-pag... which gives you links to IA and Google caches with a right-click.
      - VLM 12y ago
        Even just a summary? We've got nothing. The site is down and even the archive.org link above isn't responding. My guess just based on title is something along the lines of silos are bad so lets make a better silo. But, our silo will be a really nice silo. Forgetting that's what everyone has been doing forever. The wheel of IT rotates forever and this is a very old idea that fits the title.
        sp332 12y ago
        Nope, it actually says that this silo is empty, let's go to that other one that's more popular and about to be standardized instead of making 2 standards.
- sp332 12y ago
  http://pastebin.com/upiEHcJT http://pastebin.com/upiEHcJT
kator 12y ago
We've all been talking about "The Semantic Web" for a very long time. I would love to be proven wrong but it all reminds me of EDI[1] which for more then 30 years has tried to develop standards around data formats. I think all of these efforts so far have been doomed to die a horrible death because they don't have an obvious benefit for those involved in the massive investment required to get it right. I think theoretically it's wonderful to imagine a world of infinitely parseable machine consumable information. If anything the robots will appreciate it when they take over the world. Meanwhile I'm not convinced that Humans can attach enough value to the effort to make it worthwhile. But I could be wrong, this wouldn't be the first time and I hope not the last time. :-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_data_interchange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_data_interchange
- forkandwait 12y ago
  I believe any "universal ontology" like this is theoretically impossible in the same way that finding an isomorphism between integers and reals is impossible. I am also struck by how appealing everyone finds such classifications. But then i am something of an existentialist and doubt the transcendent reality of logic and reason.
  - thanatropism 12y ago
    While having nothing to do with "existentialism", you might appreciate this. It's the introduction to a book originally published in France in the late 70s, but that might just serve as a world wide web manifesto... http://interconnected.org/home/more/2005/06/1000Plateaus00Rhizome.pdf http://interconnected.org/home/more/2005/06/1000Plateaus00Rh... (You seem philosophically-minded)
- esbranson 12y ago
  The Semantic Web should remind you of every schema and interchange format you have ever seen. That's its purpose. The graph is a very versatile data structure conceptually. The Semantic Web cannot die because it is multiple concepts and no single concept at all. The Semantic Web is ideas not (just) implementations, and ideas never die.
snomad 12y ago
To be clear, is this stating the format as outlined on Schema (http://schema.org/ http://schema.org/) is dead?
- misterbwong 12y ago
  This article is saying the Microdata spec for semantic markup is dying (schema.org shows Microdata, RDFa and JSON-LD). RDFa/RDFa Lite is still active. Having worked with both Microdata and RDFa formats, I'm glad Microdata is dying-RDFa Lite is much simpler to implement. The Microdata spec is unnecessarily verbose and, as the article said, RDFa Lite can do everything Microdata can do & more. Hopefully having a single spec in the future can cut down the confusion and increase adoption of semantic markup.
cordite 12y ago
For anyone interested in the alternative, check out RDFa[0]. They seem to be functionally equivalent and are supported by all major search providers. [1] (if down, see web archive version [2]) [0]: http://rdfa.info/ http://rdfa.info/ [1]: http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/ http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/ [2]: http://web.archive.org/web/20140719161748/http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/ http://web.archive.org/web/20140719161748/http://manu.sporny...
elchief 12y ago
"Google suggests using microdata" https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en&ref_topic=4600154 https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en&ref... I have no horse in this race, but isn't Google the search engine kinda the deciding factor here?
- philbo 12y ago
  Not necessarily. Google search is one application for metadata, definitely, but it is by no means the only one and nor is it the most interesting imho. The same page also points out that microformats and RDFa are supported by Google too. I wonder whether the recommended status of microdata on that page is because it was proposed and edited at the W3C by a Google employee (that's pure speculation on my part btw).
ColinCera 12y ago
Alternative site: http://archive.today/v9fQO http://archive.today/v9fQO

30 points by AliCollins 12y ago

csdrane 12y ago

Site is down for me. Anyone have a mirror?

profil 12y ago
Down for me too. Found this: http://web.archive.org/web/20140719161748/http://manu.sporny.org/2013/microdata-downward-spiral/ http://web.archive.org/web/20140719161748/http://manu.sporny...
- agumonkey 12y ago
  Thanks. @pg do you think having automatic archived mirrors linked on all submission would be detrimental to linked articles ?
  - kator 12y ago
    The slashdot[1] effect has been around for a long time. Auto mirroring would be nice but at the same time it leaves a lot of open questions about content ownership, ability of the content owner to edit, monetize etc. The New York Times would not be happy if HN links were automatically mirrored and I imagine they'd be quick to protect their rights on that front. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdotted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdotted
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      If not auto-mirror then at least links to Google Cache and Webarchive in the interface would probably be welcome.
      - sp332 12y ago
        You could install Resurrect Pages https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/resurrect-pages/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/resurrect-pag... which gives you links to IA and Google caches with a right-click.
    - VLM 12y ago
      Even just a summary? We've got nothing. The site is down and even the archive.org link above isn't responding. My guess just based on title is something along the lines of silos are bad so lets make a better silo. But, our silo will be a really nice silo. Forgetting that's what everyone has been doing forever. The wheel of IT rotates forever and this is a very old idea that fits the title.
      - sp332 12y ago
        Nope, it actually says that this silo is empty, let's go to that other one that's more popular and about to be standardized instead of making 2 standards.
sp332 12y ago
http://pastebin.com/upiEHcJT http://pastebin.com/upiEHcJT

kator 12y ago

We've all been talking about "The Semantic Web" for a very long time. I would love to be proven wrong but it all reminds me of EDI[1] which for more then 30 years has tried to develop standards around data formats. I think all of these efforts so far have been doomed to die a horrible death because they don't have an obvious benefit for those involved in the massive investment required to get it right. I think theoretically it's wonderful to imagine a world of infinitely parseable machine consumable information. If anything the robots will appreciate it when they take over the world. Meanwhile I'm not convinced that Humans can attach enough value to the effort to make it worthwhile. But I could be wrong, this wouldn't be the first time and I hope not the last time. :-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_data_interchange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_data_interchange

forkandwait 12y ago
I believe any "universal ontology" like this is theoretically impossible in the same way that finding an isomorphism between integers and reals is impossible. I am also struck by how appealing everyone finds such classifications. But then i am something of an existentialist and doubt the transcendent reality of logic and reason.
- thanatropism 12y ago
  While having nothing to do with "existentialism", you might appreciate this. It's the introduction to a book originally published in France in the late 70s, but that might just serve as a world wide web manifesto... http://interconnected.org/home/more/2005/06/1000Plateaus00Rhizome.pdf http://interconnected.org/home/more/2005/06/1000Plateaus00Rh... (You seem philosophically-minded)
esbranson 12y ago
The Semantic Web should remind you of every schema and interchange format you have ever seen. That's its purpose. The graph is a very versatile data structure conceptually. The Semantic Web cannot die because it is multiple concepts and no single concept at all. The Semantic Web is ideas not (just) implementations, and ideas never die.

snomad 12y ago

To be clear, is this stating the format as outlined on Schema (http://schema.org/ http://schema.org/) is dead?

misterbwong 12y ago
This article is saying the Microdata spec for semantic markup is dying (schema.org shows Microdata, RDFa and JSON-LD). RDFa/RDFa Lite is still active. Having worked with both Microdata and RDFa formats, I'm glad Microdata is dying-RDFa Lite is much simpler to implement. The Microdata spec is unnecessarily verbose and, as the article said, RDFa Lite can do everything Microdata can do & more. Hopefully having a single spec in the future can cut down the confusion and increase adoption of semantic markup.

cordite 12y ago

For anyone interested in the alternative, check out RDFa[0]. They seem to be functionally equivalent and are supported by all major search providers. [1] (if down, see web archive version [2]) [0]: http://rdfa.info/ http://rdfa.info/ [1]: http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/ http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/ [2]: http://web.archive.org/web/20140719161748/http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/ http://web.archive.org/web/20140719161748/http://manu.sporny...

elchief 12y ago

"Google suggests using microdata" https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en&ref_topic=4600154 https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en&ref... I have no horse in this race, but isn't Google the search engine kinda the deciding factor here?

philbo 12y ago
Not necessarily. Google search is one application for metadata, definitely, but it is by no means the only one and nor is it the most interesting imho. The same page also points out that microformats and RDFa are supported by Google too. I wonder whether the recommended status of microdata on that page is because it was proposed and edited at the W3C by a Google employee (that's pure speculation on my part btw).

ColinCera 12y ago

Alternative site: http://archive.today/v9fQO http://archive.today/v9fQO