Why RDFa will fail against Microfomats: http://blog.foolip.org/2009/08/23/microformats-vs-rdfa-vs-microdata/
Nice but not at all true abstract about RDFa vs Microfomats by Tomberg: http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-506/tomberg.pdf
Table 1. Summative comparison of Microformats and RDFa. Better features marked with gray background.
| Microformats | RDFa | |
| Technological properties | ||
| Can be applied to | HTML, XHTML | In current state for XHTML 2 and limited for XHTML 1 |
| Have useful implementations for end user today | Yes, different add-ons for browsers allow that | Not very useful for end user directly |
| Can be used in mash-ups | Yes | Yes |
| Practice using for semantic indexing examples | Google and Yahoo now indexing such microformats as hCard and hReview | Google, US Government Website and Slideshare use RDFa |
| Standardized | No | Yes |
| Drawbacks | It is very difficult to use one limited dictionary for all purposes. Because of absence of standards support from developers is more enthusiastic than industrial | Because of finishing of XHTML2 development the perspectives of RDFa are very unclear at the current moment |
| Semantic properties | ||
| Vocabulary | Only one | Unlimited amount is possible |
| Vocabulary can be extended | Yes, but only through community | Yes, freely |
| Interoperability level | High | Possible only if common vocabularies are used |
| Possibilities to add semantic value to data | Average | High |
| Application for educational needs | ||
| Possible semantic data use | Course’s membership via hCard Learner and Teacher information via hCard Members relations via XFN Course events via hCalendar | Can use any semantic vocabulary that suitable for course description. |
Tags: Microformat, RDFa