[uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki

[Ross Singer]

On 3/29/06, Breton Slivka <zen at zenpsycho.com> wrote:

> Then we have properties that are specific to books/journals
>
> Pages
> Volume
>
> If these properties are present, then we know that this item is
> probably not say.. a photo or a painting, and contains all the
> properties which allow it to be pased the same whether it's a book or
> a journal. Combine it with hCite and suddenly we have bookCite


I just want to point out that ambiguity might not be bad for determining
what an item isn't, but it's not good practice for determining what an item
is.

I am currently going through our 705k marc records trying to determine what
each record actually is representing and if it's not explicitly set (which
is sadly really only done with conference proceedings and journals) it
becomes a guessing game as what these things really are.  In my case, I can
probably actually find the thing and determine what it is (although that
won't scale, obviously), but a citation I might find on the web won't afford
me that.

Explicitly stating what an item is a much sounder approach.

-Ross.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/attachments/20060330/b9117640/attachment.htm