[uf-discuss] Citation: next steps?

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On 8/30/06, Timothy Gambell <timothy.gambell at aya.yale.edu> wrote:

> The more I think about it, the more I think you folks shouldn't drop
> author. I get the feeling you've already had this conversation, but
> it seems like there can be multiple creators on a book (author and
> illustrator, for example).

Hmm .. is an illustrator a creator or a secondary contributor?

> Perhaps this calls for a structure like:

> creator:
>         role: Author
>         name: Avery Gardener

Yeah, I was thinking that, though the general approach is to just use
"contributor." So if the role-based approach, I'd then say probably
have creator and contributor, with an optional role.

Typically, in citations, one only includes role labels for
non--primary roles (translator, editor, etc.) though.

> Also, as a bonus for work of art, creator-role is a field we could use.

hCard has a role term, though I don't know if it is consistent with this?

> On the minus side, you run into some complications when it comes to
> things like publisher. Is that a creator role, or a task separate
> from creation?

It is; really more a "producer". The DC group considers it a
contributor, and has wanted to get rid of dc:publisher and use that
instead.

> Additionally, role might be the kind of information you might not
> always want to display, and I know how Tantek feels about the use of
> hidden metadata.
>
> Does this seem like a good idea, or an unnecessary added level of
> complexity?

I like it, because the added details are optional.

Bruce