[uf-discuss] Re: VIA or VIA SELF to indicate authoritativehCard

Thu Feb 15 18:13:33 PST 2007

HI all,
On 16/02/2007, at 10:14 AM, Edward O'Connor wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>>> At the moment, the only "market demand" for "related" hCards is in
>> your email.
>> FWIW, at Eventful we have a clear need for related hCards, a need 
> which
> is currently well-served by URL+UID. So there is some market demand.

as the originator of the (great grandparent?) thread, I also think 
that a "related hCard" has a huge use case. In the conferences we 
run, we mark up all speakers with hCard. Typcially this is nothing 
ore than their name and a url - fn, url
In fact, wherever you publish a name in reference to a person or 
organization, news stories, blog posts, ... it seems a very useful 
pattern
It would be nice to point this at a more detailed hCard.
The logical hierarchy, if one exists, for "more..." hcards I'd 
suggest is
1. more detailed - a link from an hCard to another, more detailed 
one. Regardless of who makes the link (the owner of the hCard or a 
third party) it carries no assetion as to authority.
2. more detailed with an assertion that the linked hCard is in some 
way authoritative, or canonical. There are two distinct cases. 2a.I 
point to my own authoritative hCard. 2b. Someone else points to my 
authoritative hCard
I'd suggest anecdotally that 1 and 2a are the most commonly found 
circumstances, and indeed, the combination of the two probably solves 
2b.
I think 1 is a lot easier to solve than 2a or b, because it makes 
less strongs assertion about the nature of the linked hCard, - only 
that it contains more detail about the same person.
j
>> Ted
>> -- 
> Edward O'Connor
> hober0 at gmail.com
>> Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.
>> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss