Re: XPN: Xhtml Professional Network - idea

Thanks for all your replies to my XPN Idea,

I started a XPN-examples page, to see if we can get this off
of the 
ground. ( http://micr
oformats.org/wiki/xpn-examples )

A couple of replies to the discussion:

Steve Ganz; Former and current would be good additions, and
thank's alot 
for posting what you've already done at linkedIn, I added it
to the 
wiki. I can see some problems with XFN there, so we'll
probably need to 
look into that.

Tara Hunt; Those are good additions too.(general
question Can we add

those to the examples pages, or would we need to make a
XPN-ideas page, too?

Ben Buchanan; I don't really agree with you there, there are
plenty of 
web development company's that have clients they do not
concider 
friends. While there are those that do, I don't think we
should alienate 
those that don't. A relationships microformat which
incorporates both 
XFN and XPN would be a great solution indeed.

You are completely right about sliced and design not being a

relationship. You are also right about defining global
business 
relationships, It seems I wanted to define too much.

Tantek Çelik; Thanks for your reply, I decided to jump in
and make a 
wiki page. I understand your concerns about it not being
real world 
examples, But (I think) in essence any portfolio or client
list 
currently tries to define those relationships.

Jonathan Williams; If a webdesign company made a website,
it's made by 
the company; not by it's individual members. This would pose
problems 
with projects not done by a company but by a group of
individual 
persons. In that case the client relationships would still
be legimate, 
right? It does have some crossover with hResume, I agree.

As I am fairly new at this, I wouldn't mind any gentle
directions as to 
what I should and should not do.

Thanks,

Kilian Valkhof
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Hi again,

> Ben Buchanan; I don't really agree with you there,
there are plenty of
> web development company's that have clients they do not
concider
> friends. While there are those that do, I don't think
we should alienate
> those that don't. A relationships microformat which
incorporates both
> XFN and XPN would be a great solution indeed.

I wasn't saying all business/clients were friends - my point
was just
that creating a "business only" microformat seems
counter productive.
I think XFN and XPN should be superseded by one single,
combined
relationships microformat which can cover all bases.

If someone only wanted to show a friends network they could;
if a
company only wants to show business relationships they could
do that
too. Nobody would be alienated with a combined uf.

I would happily see XFN extended with business relationships
since
it's only the name which prevents that happening. Rename it
from
"friends network" to "relationship
network" or something and it's all
good 

To approach it another way - XFN is essentially just an
addon to
blogrolls. A business blogroll does not have any
requirements that
cannot be met by XFN's pattern - it's just that XFN is
limited to a
narrow set of "friend" relationships (although
they spill over to
professional as well, with colleague etc). We could extend
XFN - which
is already adopted by many people/sites - to include more
values and
avoid creating competing ufs.

> You are completely right about sliced and design not
being a
> relationship. You are also right about defining global
business
> relationships, It seems I wanted to define too much.

I feel that you're heading into resume territory - allowing
people to
specify what they did on a specific project. Still valuable,
but not
something that would really work in a blogroll situation
(being the
most common use of XFN I've seen so far).

cheers,

Ben

-- 
--- <http://www.200ok.com.au/
>
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Hi everyone. I'm new to the list =)

Sorry to intrude here but, I  believe it's not necessary an
XPN. I
think just an addition of a client and a "service
provider"* relations
is enough to fit in, and would be a nice addition.

Also, I agree that including the type of work done to a
client or vice
versa would be getting in the resume territory and would be
kind of
too much.

If the addition of these two should be done, the name would
feel wrong
too, as Ben Buchana said, changing it to Relationship
Network would
fit it better.

*Gotta figure out a better name for it, service provider
isn't good.
But I can't think of anything better now.



2007/1/28, Ben Buchanan <microformats200ok.com.au>:
> Hi again,
>
> I wasn't saying all business/clients were friends - my
point was just
> that creating a "business only" microformat
seems counter productive.
> I think XFN and XPN should be superseded by one single,
combined
> relationships microformat which can cover all bases.
>
> If someone only wanted to show a friends network they
could; if a
> company only wants to show business relationships they
could do that
> too. Nobody would be alienated with a combined uf.
>
> I would happily see XFN extended with business
relationships since
> it's only the name which prevents that happening.
Rename it from
> "friends network" to "relationship
network" or something and it's all
> good 
>
> To approach it another way - XFN is essentially just an
addon to
> blogrolls. A business blogroll does not have any
requirements that
> cannot be met by XFN's pattern - it's just that XFN is
limited to a
> narrow set of "friend" relationships
(although they spill over to
> professional as well, with colleague etc). We could
extend XFN - which
> is already adopted by many people/sites - to include
more values and
> avoid creating competing ufs.
>
>
> I feel that you're heading into resume territory -
allowing people to
> specify what they did on a specific project. Still
valuable, but not
> something that would really work in a blogroll
situation (being the
> most common use of XFN I've seen so far).
>
> cheers,
>
> Ben
>
> --
> --- <http://www.200ok.com.au/
>
> --- The future has arrived; it's just not
> --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discussmicroformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
>


-- 
Rafael Oliveira
http://rafaeloliveira.net
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 1/28/07, Ben Buchanan <microformats200ok.com.au> wrote:
> I wasn't saying all business/clients were friends - my
point was just
> that creating a "business only" microformat
seems counter productive.
> I think XFN and XPN should be superseded by one single,
combined
> relationships microformat which can cover all bases.

I agree here.  The heart of XFN/XPN is to define your
relationship
with someone.  However, they are both somewhat discriminate
in regards
to the types of relationships that can be defined.  Instead
I agree
and support the notion that there should be a single
relationship uF
that embrace all relationship statuses (friendly, business,
etc.).  By
being so broad, it would make the uF much more scalable than
something
that is more specific.  This way we can keep discussions to
agreed
upon rel values.

> If someone only wanted to show a friends network they
could; if a
> company only wants to show business relationships they
could do that
> too. Nobody would be alienated with a combined uf.
>
> I would happily see XFN extended with business
relationships since
> it's only the name which prevents that happening.
Rename it from
> "friends network" to "relationship
network" or something and it's all
> good 

Relationship network sounds good to me; it's to the point
and not too specific.

> To approach it another way - XFN is essentially just an
addon to
> blogrolls. A business blogroll does not have any
requirements that
> cannot be met by XFN's pattern - it's just that XFN is
limited to a
> narrow set of "friend" relationships
(although they spill over to
> professional as well, with colleague etc). We could
extend XFN - which
> is already adopted by many people/sites - to include
more values and
> avoid creating competing ufs.
>
> cheers,
>
> Ben
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss