[uf-discuss] Citation Straw Proposal II (Recap)

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On 5/5/06, Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> > A given article citation is part of a journal (which is just another
> > citation). The problem is that they would share ALOT of the same info
> > (PubDate, Publisher, etc) It would be difficult to publish an article
> > in a journal by two different publishers? (or i am off the mark here?)
> > So i'm not sure how much benefit there is in nesting citations.
>
> You see the benefit even in really simple examples like chapters in
> edited collections. The chapter author is a creator on the main level,
> while the editor is attached to the container.

Just to expand a bit, I don't think the issue you raise is that much
of a problem in practical use. I'm saying that it's pretty crucial to
be able to associate, in particular, contributors and titles with
their relevant relations. In fact, the majority of bibliographic data
formats I'm aware of (RIS, Refer, TEI, MODS) use some kind of level or
relation encoding to capture this.

So you could do (just using titles for illustration):

<li class="citation">
  <span class="title">Chapter Title</span>
  <span class="container">
    <span class="title">Book Title</span>
  </span>
</li>

<li class="citation">
  <span class="title">Conference Paper Title</span>
  <span class="event">
    <span class="title">Conference Title</span>
  </span>
</li>

... or:

<li class="citation">
  <span class="title">Chapter Title</span>
  <span class="container title">Book Title</span>
</li>

Note: the current "publication" thing covers similar ground as
"container", though is more narrow.

<li class="citation">
  <span class="title">Conference Paper Title</span>
  <span class="event title"Conference Title</span>
</li>

Without either of those, it won't scale, which becomes even more clear
when you throw contributors into the mix. And the only benefit the
non-nested example offers is it's more terse. But it's also more
difficult to process.

Bruce