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

Michael McCracken michael.mccracken at gmail.com
Fri Sep 22 18:41:18 PDT 2006

On 9/22/06, Ryan Cannon <ryan at ryancannon.com> wrote:

 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
> obscurity.

I've certainly invested a lot of time and effort in BibTeX - I wrote
BibDesk** - so I can sympathize with not wanting to reinvent that
wheel, but it's been pointed out convincingly enough to me that BibTeX
does not cover 80% of usage on the web right now. If you think it does
(as I did) you just need to look outside your research area. See the
list archives for examples of things BibTeX handles poorly - patents,
case law, works of art, etc.

You do make the important point that choosing wisely from existing
property-naming schemes is critical for adoption. This week's
discussion of marking up contributors is an example of the tension
between that and needing to be flexible enough for actual uses on the
web, as documented in citation-examples.

Right now it looks like the consensus (of people who have had time to
post) is that erring slightly on the side of flexibility (as opposed
to copying the most familiar property names) *in the case of the
people involved in a cited work*, is the way to go.


**- Originally.. BibDesk since about version 1.0 has been largely the
work of the estimable Adam Maxwell and Christiaan Hofman...

> 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/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

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