In an offline conversation with Chris Messina, we discussed the idea of creating blog-length interviews with various in the wild apps describing their processes and the technologies that they use with regards to data portability. The goal is to profile real use cases, solutions, and lessons learned when it comes to the current state of affairs for data portability technology. I am using the term “data portability technology” loosely here and is in no way affiliated with the ongoings of DataPortability.org.
So I am giving it a go and see what comes of it because we both think this kind of information can be useful to others looking to understand the lay of the data portability land. As such, I will title all such future posts starting with “In the wild snapshot…” as well as assign the category (WordPress terminology) of “in the wild snapshot”. If any of you are interested in doing such an interview, leave a comment on here and I will get in touch with you. Note that these posts are generally meant for web developers but everyone is welcomed to read it of course.
First up, I interviewed myself on my recent XFN coding experiment, neat how that works.
Given the abundance of XFN producers available, I wanted to create a XFN consuming application instead. If you need an introduction to rel-me and XFN, check out my earlier post here. The basic idea is to extract XFN information from a URL and present it in a human readable form, in my case, grouping rel-me entries into “My Online Identities” and rel-contact entries into “My contacts”, that’s it, pretty simple thing to do.
As a newcomer to XFN, this is a good way, at least for me, to learn about XFN. lab.backnetwork parser works pretty well for extracting XFN information especially since it provides real-time parsing. However, unlike Google Social Graph API, it doesn’t currently parse FOAF. FOAF is a competing standard to XFN but can be used in conjunction with XFN. Here’s a post about XFN and FOAF. From the few profile pages I have seen, it is possible for people to use both XFN and FOAF. For example, on such a profile page, XFN is used to markup the multiple rel-me identities and FOAF (in a separate file) is used to list all his friends. However in other profile pages, FOAF is skipped altogether. It doesn’t appear that there is a best practice published on how to mix and match the various technology.
Another issue I ran into is parsing and displaying human readable names for XFN URLs. As it stands, XFN allows one to define relationship between oneself and friends all centered around the URLs. However, URLs are not designed for optimal human readability, some URLs are long and unruly and others employ the use of proprietary internal naming scheme, e.g. (actual site names changed to protect the innocent),
The reason why I think it is important to couple human readable names with URLs is that a consuming app usually wants to do something meaningful with the XFN information and URLs alone does not provide complete information resulting in the end user having to do more work filling in the human readable information after the initial extraction.
In my discussion with Kevin Marks, he indicated that hCard can and should be used along with XFN to provide complete information. For example, it is possible to have the following XFN and hCard markup
I think this is a best practice that is not obvious. Developers are generally familiar with each type of microformats standard but I haven’t seen much documentation in way of how to mix and match the various standards for optimal use. Each standard tends to be describe in silo without consideration for other standards, so hopefully revelations like this can help developers better understand how to use the standards.
Even though the XFN/hCard combination is more complete than just XFN, I still see some issues with it. For example, a parser has to understand the implied relationship between the hCard information and the XFN information and returns that information as a related entity meaning that hCard provides the human readable names for the XFN URL, a relationship that is currently not part of the hCard or XFN spec, so it has to be inferred by the developer. Also, I would like this type of cross standards best practices to also extend to XFN/FOAF, etc. Note that at this time, Google Social Graph APIs do not parse hCard information so even if someone put that information on their profile page, it won’t be useful if the consuming app uses Google Social Graph API. Kevin indicates that he might rectify this in the future and extends the API to also parse hCard.
Feedback and suggestions are welcomed.
Chris pointed me to a blog post he did on XFN, Portable contact lists and the case against XFN, it’s worth a read IMO.