[microformats-discuss] Re: intro

[Brian Suda]

I would agree that a Bibliographic Microformat WOULD be helpful. When
citing publications that are ONLY in print there is no URL to
references. Plus, there is extra data that is not always represented
in a URL, such as Page Number, Issue, etc. A good place to start with
this sort of data would be to model it after BibTeX references, they
have been around for a long time and are pretty solid.

This is something i would be interested in helping with creating. The
Wiki is a good place to start drafting such a format and getting other
people´s input.

-brian

On 8/14/05, Ryan King <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2005, at 11:57 PM, Marius Scurtescu wrote:
> >>> One possible thing that is missing is a microformat to represent
> >>> generic
> >>> bibliographical data. I know that there are movie and music review
> >>> microformats, but nothing for books (and related: magazines,
> >>> papers, ...).
> >>
> >> You can use hreview for books, is that what you're looking for? I
> >> don't think dead tree media should get special treatment here.
> >
> > While there is some overlap between the reviews and bibliographical
> > data,
> > they still are very different things in my oppinion. For a
> > bibliographical
> > reference you need fields like: title, authors, publisher, year,
> > edition,
> > pages, ...
> 
> I can see why you'd want to publish this data, but I don't think a
> review is the right place for this data, because you can't really
> *assert* these datums?
> 
> I think a URL should be enough to identify a book, but I know
> there'll be some here who disagree with me.
> 
> -ryan
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
> 


-- 
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk