[uf-discuss] Citation: next steps?
bdarcus.lists at gmail.com
Thu Aug 31 09:52:27 PDT 2006
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:
> 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
> 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
I like it, because the added details are optional.
More information about the microformats-discuss