[microformats-discuss] Proposing RelSource

[Andy Skelton]

On 7/12/05, Tantek Çelik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > In light of this, I see no reason to pursue a microformat for source
> > links/citations/hat tips. If authors adopt rel="cite" they are
> > preemptively applying a well-defined, semantic model that is both
> > user-friendly and easily parsed by machines.
> 
> I see the conclusion as quite the opposite.  Because rel="cite" *is* defined
> in XHTML2 drafts, and microformats allow you add rel values to HTML4/XHTML1
> *now*, adopting the same convention makes a lot of sense.
> 
> If anything it bolsters the case for rel="cite" (as opposed to some other
> value like rel="source").

Oops, that was the exact point I was trying to make. I *do* plan to
adopt and promote rel="cite" but I don't see a need to go through the
hooplah of defining it as a microformat. Or am I missing something?

As for whether people /should/ indicate primary sources differently
than non-primary sources, i.e. hat tips, consider the definition of
the word /cite/:
"to quote or refer to as a precedent or authority"
(Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, (c) 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)
With that in mind, it would not be incorrect to cite both the primary
source (authority) and a hat tip or "via" (precedent) with the same
markup.

Robots can construct "citation chains" to discover a likely primary
source if a standard markup is used. The position of any resource
relative to Primary on a chain could be of great value to search
engines. It was this idea that excited me to propose RelSource in the
first place. I'm just as happy with RelCite.

Andy