[uf-discuss] Citation IRC Meet-up Time

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Mon Apr 10 09:22:18 PDT 2006

On 4/10/06 8:13 AM, "Alf Eaton" <lists at hubmed.org> wrote:

> On 10 Apr 2006, at 11:09, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> On 4/10/06 7:13 AM, "Alf Eaton" <lists at hubmed.org> wrote:
>>> On 10 Apr 2006, at 03:40, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/06 3:53 PM, "Alf Eaton" <lists at hubmed.org> wrote:
>>>>> At the end of the meeting I agreed to make a new wiki page that
>>>>> summarised the previous discussion and had some examples that could
>>>>> be a basis for further progress. Here's the page - feel free to
>>>>> edit,
>>>>> particular with extending the examples to cover other reference
>>>>> types:
>>>>> http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-recommendation
>>>> Alf, thanks very much for writing this up.
>>>> As these are notes from a discussion, and I'd like to avoid the
>>>> confusion
>>>> with some of the connotations of "recommendation" (i.e. in the W3C
>>>> sense),
>>>> I've moved that page here:
>>>>  http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-irc-notes-2006-04-09
>>> Actually the intention was that it be a recommendation (but it
>>> doesn't have to use that word, obviously), as a step between the
>>> brainstorming and an actual specification (to tidy everything
>>> together). Brian was planning on doing IRC notes separately.
>> Alf, it is premature to be making "recommendations" when the
>> necessary steps
>> in the process have not yet been completed.  More on the wiki page
>> itself.
>> With a citation microformat in particular (given the history of so
>> many
>> different citation format efforts), we must take particular care to
>> follow
>> the process closely with respect to proper research and
>> documentation so
>> that a citation microformat doesn't just become another either
>> rarely used
>> or niche-specific citation format.
> I think draft is actually the word I was looking for. I think most
> people agreed that the background research and documentation had
> covered everything

Whether people agree on it or not is actually not relevant if the process
hasn't been followed.  In this case, as widely documented, something as
simple as "implied schema analysis" on the examples had not even been

> and had become sprawling enough that it was time
> to condense it

Yes, clean-up and reorganization and wiki gardening makes a lot of sense for
those pages.

> into something implementable.

No.  That first requires good *-examples, *-formats, and *-brainstorming
pages.  Until then it is premature.



More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list