[uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki
tjameswhite at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 30 05:48:55 PST 2006
--- Scott Reynen <scott at randomchaos.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:15 PM, Ross Singer wrote:
> > Explicitly stating what an item is a much sounder approach.
> I agree. What if I want to cite a photograph and all I know about it
> is the photographer's name and the title of the photograph?
You cite the photographer's name and title of the photograph.
<cite><span class="photographer">Ansel Adams</span>, <span
I understand the desire to capture "type" metadata - I wanted to
include it for the longest time. But - from a microformats point of
view - we have to keep two things in mind:
1) Humans first, machines second.
This means keeping everything visible, not trapped in metadata. If you
really want to note that it's a photo then include that:
<cite>Photo <span class="title">Siesta Lake</span> by <span class="fn
2) "Adapted to current behaviors and usage patterns."
Microformats are suppose to be modeled on what people are currently
doing (80/20) on the web. I think of it in terms of the Everyman/woman.
Capturing metadata isn't what is happening by the 80. Look at the
examples collected on the wiki, very little metadata if any.
(http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-examples -- look to the Implied
I think things like marc records, OpenURL, Bibtex, etc. are actually
*too* specific for MF. If the library community needs something to
replace the existing standards, it'd be great if it was based off of a
microformat, but it shouldn't be the MF.
<a href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12227&t=1">Get Firefox!</a>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the microformats-discuss