29 Mar
2007
29 Mar
'07
11:54 a.m.
Yeah, much as I'm a fan of whatever.com/tags/tag style URLs, I'd
second Kake's discomfort with having to buy into a particular URL
scheme. It works fine if you're starting from scratch and can't muster
any more semantics, but I reckon the OpenGuides can do better ;)
As suggested, one option is to exploit the existing RDF/XML
"infrastructure", and expose categories and locales as "tags" using
Richard Newman's tag ontology [1]. I've used this myself and it works
pretty well. Using the whole-hog approach of expressing "who tagged
what with what and when" might be a bit tricky, because if you edit an
entry that I placed in the Wolverton locale, who did the tagging? me?
both of us? and when? I'm not sure if this degree of provenance data
is held in the db or not.
Anyway, there is a simpler approach using that same ontology, that
achieves what rel-tag does, but just does it "properly" ;) Something
like this would do the job:
ex:obj tags:tag [ tags:associatedTag tag:great , tag:interesting ] .
...perhaps with another statement to give each tag a label. (this code
comes from the third grey box from the bottom of [1], if that makes
sense).
Cheers,
Tom.
[1] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/
On 29/03/07, Daniel Alexander Smith <daniel(a)pling.net> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007, at 23:17, Kake L Pugh wrote:
On Wed 28 Mar 2007, Bob Walker
<bob(a)randomness.org.uk> wrote:
Also, one might prefer RDFa or GRDDL to achieve similar goals.
I'm not expert enough to recommend one over the other, however GRDDL
does seem to be dynamic enough that it might be a low-hanging fruit to
grab for Open Guides.
Of course Open Guides already outputs actual RDF/XML, so some might
argue this whole exercise is somewhat redundant.
Daniel
--
OpenGuides-Dev mailing list - OpenGuides-Dev(a)lists.openguides.org
http://lists.openguides.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openguides-dev
We have discussed before that we prefer
categories and locales
over "tags"
becasue they are less freeform. However they are our "tags" and as
such we
should probably mark them up like that for microformat goodness.
It would
seem the way to do this is to add rel="tag" in the <a>.
Bob pointed me at
http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-tag
for further info, and it looks like it isn't this simple. The only
way they
allow you to state what the tag actually _is_ (e.g. "pub",
"bermondsey") is
to have it as the final "component" of the URL that you link to.
Having it
as a query parameter is no use. Having it as an additional
attribute of the
<a> element is no use. Having it as some non-final component of
the URL in
order to be compatible with some other scheme that also wants to
have its
data as the final component of the URL is no use.
So basically - we can't do this as it stands, and even if we did
decide to
rewrite all our URLs to fit in with it, we'd be locking ourselves
into a
particular URL scheme which may well be incompatible with the next
cool
thing to come along.
It feels rather like something that hasn't been properly thought
out yet,
particularly given the valid and recent criticisms raised at
http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-tag-feedback