[uf-discuss] Citation Microformat: Examples (wiki structure seems confusing)

Joe Andrieu joe at andrieu.net
Thu Oct 19 01:38:19 PDT 2006


Thanks for the feedback on how I can contribute.  I've been a bit busy, but
was able to do some research on the Accessed Date field I would like to see
added to the spec.

You suggested I post some examples on the web page, but I don't understand
your organizational strategy of "Examples are broken down and organized by
element." And since you made a point of keeping that clean, I have hesitated
to mess it up.

So, with apologies to the list, I've included the markup here.  If you can
explain where & how I should put it into the Wiki, I'd be happy to. (I have
access, just not sure exactly where on the page to put them.)

I found no examples with any sort of semantic markup, although that is
typical in most of the examples already on the wiki.

For example, Google marks up the Retrieved On date for cached pages like
<font face=arial,sans-serif color=black size=-1>This is <b><font
color=#0039b6>G</font> <font color=#c41200>o</font> <font
color=#f3c518>o</font> <font color=#0039b6>g</font> <font
color=#30a72f>l</font> <font color=#c41200>e</font></b>'s <a
color=blue>cache</font></a> of <A
color=blue>http://direct.sref.org/1680-7375/acpd/2006-6-9723</font></a> as
retrieved on Oct 10, 2006 18:34:10 GMT.<br>
Basically, without any semantic markup.

Similarly, Wikipedia sometimes uses "Retrieved On"[1]:
<li id="_note-2"><b><a href="#_ref-2" title="">^</a></b> <a
class="external text"
Edge: Script Callbacks in ASP.NET</a>. <a href="/wiki/MSDN"
title="MSDN">MSDN</a> Magazine (2004-08-08). Retrieved on <a
href="/wiki/2006" title="2006">2006</a>-<a href="/wiki/August_1"
title="August 1">08-01</a>.</li>

While, other times, it uses "Accessed On" [2]:
<li id="_note-0"><b><a href="#_ref-0" title="">^</a></b> "<a
href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/98037--b.htm#1" class="external
text" title="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/98037--b.htm#1">s1(1)
Crime and Disorder Act 1998</a>", Office of Public Sector Information. URL
accessed on 18 June 2006.</li>
Again, no semantics in the markup. The links for the date are tags into

CiteSeer uses Accessed On [3] both in the <HEAD> and in the <BODY>:
<title>Citations: html accessed on the 29th of October - Trec, August, trec,
gov (ResearchIndex)</title>
<meta name="keywords" content="TREC, \Trec overview,  August 2000.
http://trec.nist.gov/overview.html accessed on the 29th of October, 2000.">
<meta name="description" content="TREC, \Trec overview, August 2000.
http://trec.nist.gov/overview.html accessed on the 29th of October, 2000.">


<span class=h> <b>TREC. Trec overview, August 2000.
http://trec.nist.gov/overview. <i>html accessed on the 29th of October</i>,

A few more:
Ning.com's Girl-on-Girl page for Scarlett Johanson[4], actually in hidden
text for some reason.

<b>^</b> Neil Young's Film Lounge.
Peter Webber on Girl with a Pearl Earring. Retrieved on April 12, 2006.</li>
<b>^</b> The Jewish Forward. The Scarlett Grandma. Retrieved on April
12, 2006.</li>
<b>^</b> MSNBC. Scarlett Johansson escapes Cruise's clutches. Retrieved on
July 18, 2006.</li>
<b>^</b> MovieWeb. Scarlett Johansson Is The Other Boleyn Girl. Retrieved on
July 18, 2006.</li>
<b>^</b> Life Style Extra. Scarlett Johansson to star in Dallas. Retrieved
on July
23, 2006.</li>

<b>^</b> ScarlettFan. 21 Jul 2006 - Dallas Movie and Reebok. Retrieved on
23, 2006.</li>
<b>^</b> IMDB News. Johansson: Because I'm Worth It. Retrieved on July 18,
<b>^</b> Maxim's 2006 Top 100</li>
<b>^</b> BusinessWire. Reebok Partners with Screen Star Scarlett Johansson
to Create Red-Hot Fashion
Collection, Scarlett Hearts Rbk. Retrieved on July 25, 2006.</li>
RE-ELECTION. Retrieved on
July 18, 2006.</li>

<b>^</b> Reuters. Could Scarlett Johansson be Woody's next muse?. Retrieved
July 25, 2006.</li>
<b>^</b> TheObserver.
Retrieved on August 09, 2006.</li>
<b>^</b> BangItOut. Match Point (2005). Retrieved on July 18,
<b>^</b> FemaleFirst. Scarlett Johansson
slams God acceptance speechs. Retrieved on July 18, 2006.</li>
<b>^</b> ContactMusic. JOHANSSON'S BIZARRE RELIGIOUS MOMENT. Retrieved on
18, 2006.</li>

And a page from the University of Virginia[5]:
<P>American Council on Education and American Association of University
Professors. 2000. <I>Does Diversity Make a Difference? Three Research 
Studies on Diversity in College Classrooms</I>. Executive
Summary. Washington, D.C. Retrieved on November 28, 2004 from 

Issues/AffirmativeAction/Archives/2000/DIVSUMY.PDF</A>. [Question 3]

<P>Affirmative Action Office, Pennsylvania State University. <I>Getting
Different Results: Affirmative Action Guidelines for Searches to 
Achieve Diversity</I>. University Park, PA. Retrieved on November 11, 2004
psu.edu/dept/aaoffice/GettingResults/index.htm</A>. [Question 6]

<P>American Association of University Professors. 1973. <I>Diversity &
Affirmative Action in Higher Education: 
A Report by the Council Committee on Discrimination</I>. Washington, DC.
Retrieved on December 9, 2004 from 
Issues/AffirmativeAction/Archives/pre1996/AARDAFHE.HTM</A>  [Question 6]

<P>Bingham McCutcheon LLP, Morrison & Foerster LLP, and Heller Erhman White
& McAuliffe LLP. <I>Preserving Diversity in Higher 
Education: A Manual on Admissions Policies and Procedures After the
University of Michigan Decisions</I>. 
Retrieved on January 6, 2005 from 

[Question 2]

There are also various standards which require citations of online material
include an Access or Retrieval Date, including the World Intellectual
Property Organization's (WIPO) standard for citing patents [6] and the APA
Style Guide[7], which is commonly used for papers in the social sciences.

If Google, Wikipedia, and CiteSeer use an Access Date and WIPO and the APA
style guide require it, would you agree that meets the 80/20 threshold?



Joe Andrieu
joe at andrieu.net
+1 (805) 705-8651

> -----Original Message-----
> From: microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org 
> [mailto:microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org] On 
> Behalf Of Brian Suda
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 5:50 AM
> To: Microformats Discuss
> Subject: Re: RE: [uf-discuss] Citation Microformat: LazyWeb 
> for BibTeXperts
> On 10/6/06, Joe Andrieu <joe at andrieu.net> wrote:
> > Based on what you've done, I have a process question.
> >
> > I, and others, have mentioned the need for a DateAccessed 
> field, which 
> > is required by several citation standards when referencing online 
> > work, e.g., the APA Style Guide [1].  I mentioned that on the Wiki, 
> > but didn't add the use cases I'm concerned with, until just now.
> >
> > I'm assuming that means it isn't included in what you've 
> done so far.
> --- correct. From the examples online[1] most (if any) did 
> not have a dateAccessed. [well one did 
> CiteProc_XHTML_Output[2], which doesn't fall into the 80/20]. 
> I'm not against exploring dateAccessed, there might be ways 
> to extract an access date without actually declaring it 
> explicitly. If you are looking for the DATETIME that you 
> "viewed" the article, then that could be added by the 
> transforming application (this might be a bad idea?) and/or 
> use the timestamp that is sent in HTTP Headers (Last-Modified 
> date - again, maybe a bad idea?)
> > Process-wise, how do I contribute such that a dtAccessed field (or
> > equivalent) makes it into the final standard?
> --- Since we are modeling microformats on real-world 
> examples. It would be best to document sites that are 
> ACTUALLY explicitly marking-up dtAccessed. (and/or ways to 
> get at that data implicitly). When you find examples please 
> add them to the citation-examples page. It would be great if 
> you could follow the format that already exists [i spent AGES 
> cleaning that page up :) ]
> > The implied schema on the citations-formats page[5] includes the 
> > dateAccessed, for which I just updated the link to examples 
> so it goes 
> > to the APA style guide (the old one was invalid).
> --- correct. The citations-formats implied schema is from the 
> formats. IF we were modeling after known formats (which we 
> are not) then that would be the schema to be used. We ARE 
> modeling after real-world use. So i took the implied schema 
> from the FORMATS and crossed that with the implied schema 
> from the EXAMPLES. In that UNION dataAccess fell out.
> > However the implied schemas in your straw format in 
> > citations-brainstorming[6] don't include dtAccessed and it 
> seems wrong 
> > for me to simply add it via the wiki.
> --- we can add it if we can show that dtAccessed is in use in 
> the real world.
> > Certainly, one could make a case that citations to online 
> references 
> > fails the 80/20 rule, because the vast bulk of current 
> citations are 
> > to print materials.  However, I think a bit of forward 
> thinking here 
> > might be in order.
> --- i'm certainly adminable to being flexible and open. The 
> open issues for citations are pretty much all about how to 
> get things working now while making it open for extending 
> properties at a later date. We don't need to think too much 
> about a version 2.0 when we don't even have a 1.0 yet. But 
> yes, not shooting outselves in the foot or painting our 
> selves into a corner are most desirable.
> > As you seem to be the shephard on this effort, what can I 
> do to help 
> > with this particular issue? (Other than raise a few points here?)
> --- one of the other great things about microformats is that 
> the standards are NOT set in stone. We are now (i feel) in 
> the itteration phase. We have a straw proposal for the 
> format. I think raising good point is needed, but more 
> importantly it is time to "get our hands dirty". If we all go 
> out an have a few "test mark-ups" and convert that data to 
> BibTeX and see what happens. If it falls flat on it's face, 
> then we need to re-evaluate the straw proposal. If it does 
> pretty well, then we look at the mark-up for MODS or Dublic 
> Core, etc. If that falls down, we update and itterate again.
> We can theorize about what SHOULD be in there, but instead i 
> think we should take the time to see what actually works and 
> what doesn't - fix the things that don't work and keep moving forward.
> > That said, I am a big fan of what you've done so far.  I'm just not 
> > sure how these remaining details get worked out on the way to a 
> > "final" microformat.
> --- There are lots of smart people work on this project (smarter than
> i) all pitching in. I think if we get some "test cases" and 
> see where things fall down and itterate from there. We'll 
> never get everything perfect, we just have to take off our 
> "citation expert" glasses/hats and agree when we've hit that 
> 80% mark of what IS ACTUALLY being published on the web.
> -brian
> [1] - http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-examples
> [2] - 
> http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-examples#CiteProc_XHTML_Output
> -- 
> brian suda
> http://suda.co.uk _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list 
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list