[uf-discuss] [citation] url field
michael.mccracken at gmail.com
Fri Dec 8 09:26:23 PST 2006
On 12/8/06, Alf Eaton <lists at hubmed.org> wrote:
> On 04 Dec 2006, at 21:48, Michael McCracken wrote:
> > I do think that a URL field (class="url") should be included, to
> > represent a link to a copy of the cited work, and if we want to mark
> > up one or more identifiers, we can use a separate class (I suggest
> > "uid") to do so. If we're lucky and there's a good way to merge them,
> > then use class="url uid".
> > I'd like to get feedback on whether or not the list likes the idea of
> > a URL field as outlined above - separate from the issue of URNs and
> > metadata recovery.
> I think there could be either both a URL field (eg http://
> www.journal.com/volume/issue/article) and a URI field (eg info:pmid/
> 1234567), or collapse them both into just URI fields. They're all
> going to be ways to find the resource, and presumably the processor
> would know to choose the HTTP URL when appropriate.
OK, That seems like a reasonable presumption. It wouldn't be so hard
to do the right thing in software when faced with a non-http URI.
Either you know how to resolve it or you punt.
After all this, now I'm leaning towards a collapsed URI field. Was I
the only one who was holding out on a distinction?
> If there are enough useful identifiers that aren't URIs (I think
> there probably are), then there needs to be a UID field as well.
Can you come up with some examples of IDs that aren't URIs?
(preferably on the wiki for posterity?)
That would help move this along.
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
More information about the microformats-discuss