[uf-discuss] Easy book citations
bdarcus.lists at gmail.com
Sun Jul 30 10:17:37 PDT 2006
On 7/30/06, Tantek Çelik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> On 7/30/06 7:59 AM, "Fred Stutzman" <fred at metalab.unc.edu> wrote:
> > I think microformat citations are a great idea.
> Hi Fred and thanks!
> > The good news is the hard
> > work has already been done for us.
> > The .bib citation format is a flexible, open, and widely used bibliographic
> > format.
> > I believe our task could be as simple as microformatting the bib format.
> If the bib format was the overwhelmingly dominant bibliographic/citation
> format, it could be that simple. But it is not. It is one of many formats
> in wide use.
Correct, and it frustrates me to no end whenever some BibTeX user pops
up and says this. It's just not true. Moreover, it's just a bad model.
> The last time the "which format is newest / most widely in use / most
> interoperable" questions were asked, I believe OpenURL was the answer. I
> could be mistaken, I've only been on the periphery of the citation
> microformat work and there are several others here who are much more
> familiar with the state of the work.
I think the place where we were heading -- we meaning collective
consensus informed by tons of research and practical implementation
experience -- is some standard properties like:
contributors (reusing hcard for the markup)
I've long been arguing we need some relational -- dcterms:isPartOf
like -- structure, but in my more recent work on my citation style
language (and a few different software implementations of it,
extension *), I've come to the conclusion tha the only critical
structures that need some relational sugar are titles. Allowing <span
class="title series">Series Title</span> keeps things simple while
allowing a lot of flexibilty.
It would also make sense to allow them on contributors, so that you
easily get series editors and such.
More information about the microformats-discuss