[microformats-discuss] Proposing RelSource
ryan at technorati.com
Tue Jul 12 09:35:51 PDT 2005
On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:33 AM, Andy Skelton wrote:
>> 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?
Depends on how you define 'hooplah.'
A generalization of citeRel would be this:
The XHTML 2 fragment:
is equivalent to this is XHTML 1
(or rel-foo, I dare not suggest caMel-case :))
Perhaps we should define this as a microformat before moving on,
since it seems elemental.
(I'm ignoring the XHMLT 2.0 vs HTML 5 issue for now.)
> 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
Who cares whether people /should/, they already /do/. We just trying
to put a little structure to what people already do.
> Robots can construct "citation chains" to discover a likely primary
> source if a standard markup is used.
Right, but its a real bitch to do so.
It was done here http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/blogs/.
And I've seen Adar give a talk about it and the majority of their
work was making inferences about the citation chain.
Now, we can't force anyone to put these structured citations in, but
> 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.
It's all good.
More information about the microformats-discuss