process, [citation] (was Re: [uf-new] announcing the hOCR and hBIB microformats)

[Scott Reynen]

On Apr 3, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Thomas Breuel wrote:

>> That working format is currently very close to doing everything  
>> that a
>> bibtex-based format can do. I have code in BibDesk that generates  
>> that
>> working format and reads it in and translates it to bibtex.
>
> I don't see how either of those statements can be true.  For  
> example, BibTeX incorporates a lot of knowledge and constraints  
> about what kinds of documents can be cited and what fields mean for  
> those cases, but Straw doesn't define that.  Furthermore, Straw  
> ignores the issue of markup (math, chemistry, mixed scripts/styles,  
> etc.) in citations.  And Straw attempts to enforce the use of  
> semantic markup for fields like dates. As a result, different  
> converters might convert BibTeX->Straw and Straw->BibTeX  
> inconsistently

Can you provide some examples of these inconsistencies?  I'm not  
clear on the problems you're describing.  Also, "straw" is not the  
name of a format; it's a generic term for a format not complete  
enough to warrant naming.  Similar to a "straw man," [1] it exists  
primarily to be torn apart, e.g. with arguments about what is wrong  
with it.  The goal is for an iterative process to encourage  
collaboration.  If you're open to such collaboration, you're input  
would not doubt be valuable.

> I'll add some more comments to the Wiki.

Please do.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

--
Scott Reynen
MakeDataMakeSense.com