[uf-discuss] citation: another example of practice in the wild

Bruce D'Arcus bdarcus.lists at gmail.com
Thu Aug 17 17:55:07 PDT 2006

On 8/17/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote:

> > *  dc:creator (OK, maybe a little problematic in different ways, but
> > widely understood and useful, if too broad for most citation needs)
> I like 'author' and 'editor' better than 'creator' and 'contributor'.
> I didn't see where 'editor' would fit. A contributor? and is a second
> author a creator or a contributor?

An editor is indeed a second-order contributor.

I actually agree that the specific roles (author, editor, translator)
are important for citation data.  But the broader "creator" is useful
as a LDC (the person that photographs an image could be called a
"photographer," or the more generic "creator"; "author" doesn't really
work there). I think one of the reasons why DC is so widely used is
precisely that it works to describe a lot of different kinds of
documents, images, etc., even if in some contexts more precise
description is needed.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list