Remember the blogger code? With the help of Sean Palmer, Dave Beckett, Dan Brickley, and the rest of the people in #foaf, I wrote an RDF serialization of the blogger code so I could embed it in my FOAF file. (It’s the 13 lines near the top, with the bc: prefix.) I registered a namespace for it, purl.org/net/bloggercode/, which is also the home of the RDF schema. Here’s the N3 version of the schema, which I typed by hand in Emacs, then converted to RDF/XML with Sean Palmer’s N3 to RDF converter.

No generator yet. Brave early adopters can encode theirs by hand by taking their blogger code and my FOAF file as an example.

And so forth.

§

Thirteen comments here (latest comments)

  1. Nice move. However, I have always found the bloggercode to be too restrictive in coverage. For example, I can’t even specify what kind of posts I deal with most in my blog (blog category). Emails to the bloggercode author have not been answered so far :(

    — Srijith #

  2. Make your own vocabulary! It’s RDF; what could go wrong?

    — Mark #

  3. I was not talking about the RDF version of bloggercode, but the actual web based version at (http://www.leatheregg.com/bloggercode/ ). Sure I can extend the RDF vocab, but it would be so much better if it could be incorporated into the original code spec.

    — Srijith #

  4. Mark was suggesting that since you can relate various namespaced vocabs and do magic things with angle brackets, there’s no need for a well-understood meaning.

    RDF/XML will save mu.

    Mark’s a smart ass.

    But he’s great at it.
    Does that offset the ad hominem attack? ;)

    — Jeremy Dunck #

  5. There seems to be a typo in the N3 file that has made it across into the schema: half or the labels for the OriginalityQuotient items are spelled with ‘c’ instead of ‘o’. (cp, cm, cmm)

    — Charles Miller #

  6. A smartass who writes RDF schemas. C’mon, admit it, this is a perfect application of RDF.

    — Mark #

  7. Charles, good catch. Fixed.

    — Mark #

  8. I like your rounded tabs, following Sam Ruby here, aren’t you?

    — Anne #

  9. Personally, I’d say that this slick combination of acronyms and cobbled technologies places you in an entirely separate league, geekwise. No seriously, if you _do_ happen to create a generator there will truly be no recovery. Sure, the pending child somewhat mitigates this, but only somewhat. ;)

    — ColdForged #

  10. Raw (trackback)

  11. Absolutely beautiful.

    [BTW, Stephen Granade says hi.]

    — Geof F. Morris #

  12. Out of curiousity, since using RDF pretty much tosses out succinctness as a goal, and since you’re not matching the original terms exactly anyway (tpp vs. t++), why not make the terms more human-readable? E.G. http://purl.org/net/bloggercode/technical#homeGrown, http://purl.org/net/bloggercode/technical#offTheShelf,
    http://purl.org/net/bloggercode/technical#selfHosted,
    http://purl.org/net/bloggercode/technical#remoteHosted,
    http://purl.org/net/bloggercode/technical#clueless

    — Avdi #

  13. I am not knowledgable enough on RDF to pass judgement on this, and I don’t think you need my approval on it in any case.

    You’ve got a strong position on RDF and SW, and I assumed that’s an informed opinion.

    This’ll be used and useful, and that makes it worth doing, regardless of whether FOAF or RDF take over the world.

    — Jeremy Dunck #

Respond privately

I am no longer accepting public comments on this post, but you can use this form to contact me privately. (Your message will not be published.)



§

firehose ‧ code ‧ planet

© 2001–9 Mark Pilgrim