[uf-discuss] citation microformat encodings
ryan at technorati.com
Wed Jan 25 15:19:54 PST 2006
On Jan 24, 2006, at 3:04 PM, C. Hudley wrote:
> On 1/24/06, Tantek Çelik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> On 1/24/06 12:50 PM, "Ed Summers" <ehs at pobox.com> wrote:
>>> I must admit to feeling a bit confused about how to proceed. Could
>>> those of us who are interested in seeing openurl components in a
>>> microformat create some pages that illustrate how it could be used?
>>> Would this confuse current efforts or add to them?
>> The key point missing is this.
>> Microformats are based FIRST on human publishing *behaviors* on
>> the *web*.
>> And ONLY THEN do we look at what previous attempts at formats have
>> done to
>> see if they can help address the problem that has been specified
>> by the
>> examples documented from the Web.
> Fair enough - it says as much on the wiki. But, was vcard being
> published as such on the web? What's confusing me is the point at
> which folks become willing to translate a non-web spec to an hSpec.
> Did you go through the whole process translating vCard into hCard? Or
> iCal and hCal? Or were these short-circuited somehow because doing so
> was obviously a good idea?
Its important to note that "the process" grew out of working on XFN,
hCard, hCalendar, rel-tag, rel-license and hReview. So, no, "the
process" wasn't followed in an explicit sense. However, the work was
done in mostly the same way, though with a smaller community.
Please understand the historical context of these formats.
> If you did follow the whole process both times, it seems totally fair
> to go through the whole process for translating OpenURL profiles to
> hCitations, or wherever else the process might lead. And tell us so,
> and we'll study the list archives etc. and get smarter quickly to make
> sure we can help more at every step.
> If you didn't go through the whole process, then I have a different
> question to ask. :)
>> Existing formats are most useful for the
>> terms and vocabulary they have chosen.
>> One point on OpenURL - as far as I can tell, all the information
>> about the
>> citation is captured in the URL.
> Did you see the recent examples posted here that pull the OpenURL
> profile fields into html classes? We have translated the OpenURL book
> and journal citation profile keys into HTML class attribute values.
> Note the class name pattern, aside from the COinS bit (the Z3988 class
> value title element, which essentially replicates the more obvious
> class attribute values). Would it be appropriate for us to put those
> examples into citation-brainstorming?
Sure. This would be classified as a "strawman proposal" - a (possibly
premature) proposal meant for brainstorming. Its worth recording, if
only so that we don't repeat the proposal later.
>> The problem is that this is NOT the way people publish citations
>> on the web.
> We could litter the wiki with 76 different examples of how journal
> publishers mark up HTML for citations. They are all inconsistent and
> incompatible. Because of that, they mostly also use OpenURL to link
> Assuming you don't really want 76 different examples, we could pull
> out a handful
> of these that are better than others. Some are already there.
Exactly. No need to put 76 different examples, but rather a
> Forgive us for a bit of frustration, having worked through years of
> inconsistent journal publishing patterns in the 1990s, and then a
> four-year standards-setting process for OpenURL (which formally came
> out in 2004), and then having to start over again here. We're willing
> to work through the process, it just isn't clear what barrier must be
> crossed before it might be even possible for somebody to consider that
> "perhaps this problem is already solved, maybe we could translate the
> answer." Or if there is, indeed, no shortcut.
We don't mean to set the bar *too* high. However, we've found that
the process for creating microformats yields good results by helping
us to think about the problem in a productive manner. Please don't
take offense at the general skepticism towards less familiar standards.
>> In short, OpenURL is *not* human friendly and does not convey human
>> *visible* information. In addition, by its dependency on a
>> specific "link
>> server" in order to be of any use at all, it does not encourage
>> *decentralized* development.
> Neither is vCard, nor iCal, human friendly. We know!
> That's why we're here. We have been working for two years to free
> OpenURL from the dependency from specific link servers and we want it
> to be useful for decentralized development, and microformats are
> obviously the best place to be for both. :)
Great. Let's work on this! If there's any confusion as to how to
proceed, please ask, pester and argue (ok, don't argue too much)
until its clear.
ryan at technorati.com
More information about the microformats-discuss