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.
t++becomeshttp://purl.org/net/bloggercode/tppt+becomeshttp://purl.org/net/bloggercode/tptbecomeshttp://purl.org/net/bloggercode/tt-becomeshttp://purl.org/net/bloggercode/tmt--becomeshttp://purl.org/net/bloggercode/tmm
And so forth.
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 :(
Comment by Srijith — Monday, October 27, 2003 @ 9:01 pm
Make your own vocabulary! It’s RDF; what could go wrong?
Comment by Mark — Monday, October 27, 2003 @ 9:07 pm
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.
Comment by Srijith — Monday, October 27, 2003 @ 9:38 pm
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? ;)
Comment by Jeremy Dunck — Monday, October 27, 2003 @ 11:43 pm
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)
Comment by Charles Miller — Monday, October 27, 2003 @ 11:47 pm
A smartass who writes RDF schemas. C’mon, admit it, this is a perfect application of RDF.
Comment by Mark — Monday, October 27, 2003 @ 11:54 pm
Charles, good catch. Fixed.
Comment by Mark — Monday, October 27, 2003 @ 11:56 pm
I like your rounded tabs, following Sam Ruby here, aren’t you?
Comment by Anne — Tuesday, October 28, 2003 @ 6:51 am
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. ;)
Comment by ColdForged — Tuesday, October 28, 2003 @ 11:40 am
Absolutely beautiful.
[BTW, Stephen Granade says hi.]
Comment by Geof F. Morris — Tuesday, October 28, 2003 @ 10:24 pm
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
Comment by Avdi — Wednesday, October 29, 2003 @ 11:26 am
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.
Comment by Jeremy Dunck — Wednesday, October 29, 2003 @ 12:19 pm