[uf-discuss] [citation] Call for scope check (was Re: Citation: next steps?)

Ryan Cannon ryan at ryancannon.com
Fri Sep 22 16:48:55 PDT 2006

Why aren't we looking for an established format to fulfill our 80/20  
requirement and become a
good 1:1 scope?

BibTex does authors like this,

@article {
   Author = {Vicente, Kim J. and Rasmussen, Jens}

While EndNote does it like this:

       <author>Vicente, Kim J.</author>
       <author>Rasmussen, Jens</author>

BibDesk[1] also exports the following:

<dd class="Pub">
   <span class="Author">Vicente, Kim J. and Rasmussen, Jens<span>

Perhaps instead of wheel reinvention, we should look to one of these  
well-used citation formats.
Is there any reason why neither BibTex nor EndNote fields are listed  
in the citation-examples
page of the wiki? They seem the closest thing to what we're looking  
for, i.e. BibTex could be to
hCite what vCard is to hCard. Blithely creating our own format seems  
reckless and doomed to

[1]: http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net/

Ryan Cannon

Interactive Developer
MSI Student, School of Information
University of Michigan

On Sep 22, 2006, at 3:00 PM, "Michael McCracken"  
<michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/22/06, Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/22/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That is the most straightforward way, yes. The problem I have  
>>> with it
>>> is the repeated role term will be displayed for every  
>>> contributor, and
>>> will likely end up being more hidden data.
>> No, I'm saying have two main terms: creator and contributor.
>> Only add a role when it actually needs to be displayed (which is not
>> the case for an author). Using creator for author is fine.
> So you're saying that for the common case where creator is clear
> enough, it'd look like this:
> <span class="citation">
>   <span class="creator vcard">author1</span>
>   <span class="creator vcard">author2</span>
>   <span class="title"> article title</span>
> ...
> </span>
> And then only use 'role' where necessary to clear things up?
> I like that, and now I see where you said it earlier, but I missed  
> it then.
> This sounds like a good solution. What does everyone else think?
> Also, what's the next issue to resolve before we can put out a draft?
> -mike
> -- 
> Michael McCracken
> UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
> research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/
> misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list