distributed-conversation-brainstorming-fr

From Microformats Wiki
Revision as of 16:12, 8 August 2006 by ChristopheDucamp (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

citeRel brainstorming

Différentes parties ont proposé des microformats apparentés aux citations et aux conversations en ligne distribuées. Ryan King et Eran Globen ont démarré avec hVia (qui est devenu citeVia et plus tard citeRel :-)). Vous pouvez voir la conversation dans ces billets de blogs :

Les gens citent déjà leurs sources dans leurs billets de blogs et ce serait génial (et ne devrait pas être trop difficle) de tracer cette information. Dans cette veine-là, lisez ce billet qui couvre l'idée initiale sur le sujet. (Ceci était un billet de relance).

Plus tard, Eran a étendu l'idée pour couvrir non seulement via des citations, mais aussi les réponses et mises à jour. Billet de relance ici.

distributed-conversation-exemples

Note pour les citations générales de texte

Cette page est complètement dédié à propos de citations d'hyperliens, soit explicitement à travers l'usage d'un <a href> ou d'un attribut essentiellement caché "cite" sur les éléments <blockquote> et <q>.

Pour les citations de texte général, jetez un oeil svp sur :

Problème

L'idée basique que nous essayons de résoudre ici est le suivi de conversation distribuée - plus spécifiquement, la conversation distribuée entre billets de blog - l'étendue est intentionnellement limitée ici, même si d'autres aspects de conversation distribuée sont certainement importants et en rapport.

Une plus petite portion du problème est dans l'identification des sources faisant le plus autorité dans un fil de discussion à l'échelle du web. En recherchant n'importe quoi, la capacité d'identifier une source primaire est inestimable. Ajouter ce type d'ordinalité ajouterait de la valeur à n'importe quelle liste de liens apparentés tel qu'une page tag.
Trouver une source faisant autoristé n'est pas un problème plus petit, mais un plus grand problème - vous devez avoir la totalité du graphe de la conversation afin de trouver les noeuds racines. --RyanKing
la définition de l'Autorité ici est trouble au possible. Bien au delà du champ de cette discussion. --EranGloben 13:41, 21 Jan 2006 (PST)
Citer ('quoting' ou faire référence à une source faisant autorité ou précédente) et donner un coup de chapeau (donner crédit à une source non primaire pour appeler l'attention vers un source initiale d'autorité) sont sûrement deux animaux différents. L'étiquette commune suggère l'utilisation de tags ancres parce qu'ils peuvent être mis en marche par l'utilisateur
J'ai plongé aux alentours du W3C et trouvé que rel="cite" est already déjà défini dans XHTML Metainformation Attributes Module. Dans XHTML 2.0 Hypertext Attribute Collection, les attributs href et cite sont définis et peuvent coexister mais se comportent différemment : L'attribut href "spécifie un URI qui est déclenché quand l'élément est activé". Pour l'attribut cite, "Les Agents Utilisateurs DOIVENT fournir un moyen pour l'utilisateur de mettre en marche le lien".
Ceci a déjà été couvert dans les billets de blogs ci-dessus. Il est admis néanmoins que cela ait besoin d'être porté dans ce document. --RyanKing
Attendu que les auteurs apprécient en général de voir leurs travaux cités avec des hyperliens, et attendu que les utilisateurs peuvent être recensés dessus pour citer des sources primaires et non primaires simultanément sans les différencier, et attendu que l'unique différence entre une citation primaire et une citation non primaire est le potentiel pour des vias skippés au moment d'être considérés dans une conversation distribuée, et attendu que l'utilisation de spécifications existantes est préférées à la création de systèmes redondants, et alors qu'augmenter les attributs est moins sévères que d'accroître les éléments imbriqués, je propose qu'une bonne définition et l'utilisation de rel="cite" résoudra le problème de créditer les sources via des ancres. Andy Skelton
I see the conclusion as quite the opposite. Because rel="cite" *is* defined in XHTML2 drafts, and microformats allow you add rel values to HTML4/XHTML1 *now*, adopting the same convention makes a lot of sense.
If anything it bolsters the case for rel="cite" (as opposed to some other value like rel="source").
In a relCite microformat, you would define the "cite" value by normatively referencing XHTML2, rather than redefining it (even copy/pasting the definition from the XHTML2 spec -- though one could do so "informatively"), just like in hCard, we define the properties by normatively referencing vCard. Tantek
XHTML 2.0 states that it "should in no way be considered stable, and should not be normatively referenced for any purposes whatsoever." Andy Skelton
That is a very good point Andy. Thus we should define rel-cite compatibly, and then give attribution and informatively reference XHTML2. Tantek
There is a related problem which is not exactly the same. Let's say that you have a bit of microformatted data which implies an assertion, and the asserter is the containing page. For example a relTag might have semantic value like "I claim that this object is a FOO." When that assertion is copied over to a new page, the identity of the asserter has to be made explicit: "according to the original containing page at BAR, this object is a FOO." Now let's say somebody copies over the copy. This might happen if there was a B-lister who had an entry picked up by an A-lister, and the A-lister's entry was then copied by a vast number of C-listers. (That's a typical pattern for data diffusion). For the data to keep its integrity, the source of the citation would always have to be the original containing page (the B-lister) rather than the containing page that the copy was fetched from (the A-lister). Lucas Gonze
Lucas- that's why God invented <blockquote>. Content copied from one site to another should be quoted. --RyanKing
The question isn't about whether something was copied but what the cite source is. This is a case where the difference between a primary citation and a non-primary citation affects the meaning of the data. Lucas Gonze
This illustrates the difference between types of citations. C quoting A's text found on B's blog. C would use a reply or forward type citation when referencing A's text and would add a via type citation when mentioning his source, B. --EranGloben 13:41, 21 Jan 2006 (PST)
I have a related problem that may shed some light on this one. I came to this page because I was just looking at a scientific journal citation and thought "that could be a microformat." There are already standard formats for citations of all sorts, including websites (e.g. Modern Language Association), so maybe converting these into microformats would solve the problem stated here, and more. -- Scott Reynen

Tags imbriqués cite/anchor

rel="cite" / rev="cite"

This could be a way to indicate a citation of linked content, typically web pages (or portions thereof, like blog posts) but inclusive of any kind of resource with a URL. "Cite" is defined as "to quote or refer to as a precedent or authority."

By adding rel="cite" to a hyperlink, an author could indicate that the destination of that hyperlink is an authoritative source or a precedent to the current page. rel="cite" would be used whether an author cites by quotation: 

<blockquote>Our liberty depends on the freedom of the
press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
<a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson" rel="cite">
Thomas Jefferson</a></blockquote>

or by reference only: 

<a href="http://example.com/joeschmoe/article/99/" rel="cite">
Joe Schmoe's latest rant</a> is wrong, wrong, wrong...

rel="cite" hyperlinks are intended to be visible links on pages and posts. Note that other markup may be used to indicate citation: 

<blockquote cite="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson">
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be
limited without being lost.<cite>Thomas Jefferson</cite></blockquote>

but User Agents are not compelled to expose a link to the cited resource. Hyperlinks are preferred by most authors because they afford the user easy access to the cited resource.

citeRel vs. relCite

For basic structure and markup of citations it has been suggested that we use the following: 

<!-- relCite example -->
<a rel="cite" href="source.url">source.title</a>

instead of 

<!-- citeRel example -->
<cite><a href="source.url">source.title</a></cite>

There are several reasons to prefer the citeRel form over the relCite form of markup:

  1. citeRel uses only existing XHTML elements and values where relCite uses a new rel value.
  2. citeRel is easily extensible without breaking it's existing meaning.

Quand est-ce que href nu est (ou pas) une citation

A href is a citation when:

  • A blog entry refers to another entry or to a presentation, then talks about that entry or presentation. eg "I believe it was more or less the same <a href="...">presentation</a> he gave at SxSW this year" Ryan King.

A href is not a citation when:

  • A blog entry refers to the author of an entry or presentation using the author's homepage url, then talks about the entry or presentation. eg "For my Internet Systems Research class last night, we had <a href="...">Tantek Çelik</a> come speak on microformats" Ryan King
  • A blog provides a blog-roll, or "recent bookmarks" panel

Moving Forward

Based on the examples found in my research, previous formats and discussions with several people I see the following possibilities for this format.

Option 1 

  <cite class=”foo”><a href=”source url”>source title</a></cite>
  <blockquote>
     Quoted text
  </blockquote>

Option 2a 

  <blockquote cite=”sourceurl” class=”foo”>
     Quoted text
  </blockquote>

Option 2b 

  <a href=”source url”>source title</a>
  <blockquote cite=”sourceurl” class=”foo”>
     Qouted text
  </blockquote>

Option 3 

  <a href=”source url” rev=”cite/via”>source title</a>
  <blockquote>
     Quoted text
  </blockquote>

Notes

  1. In the preceding examples you may substitute <Q> for <BLOCKQUOTE>
  2. Options 1 and 2 are not necessarily mutually-exclusive.
  3. In both 1 and 2 replace foo with the appropriate class name (e.g. via, rev-reply, rel-update, etc.)

Discussion

Option 1 is based on Tantek’s suggestion in The Elements of Meaningful XHTML and was reached at independently by Ryan King (see examples page). It seems to imply that the current document is citing the entirty of the linked document.

Option 2a is based on existing and emerging HTML standards and some existing patterns of use. To make the relationship explicit, the class attribute is used but this can be replaced by a rel/rev attribute as soon as one is introduced in quote elements. This option is currently problematic as no user agent I am aware of properly exposes the value of the cite attribute to the user.

Option 2b tries to solve that problem by adding a link to the cited document. This solution has the obvious disadvantage of repeating data but will evolve naturally into option 2a as soon as user agents improve their handling of cite attributes.

Option 3 is based on the cite rel value introduced in several standards and the via rel value introduced in atom. It builds on what seems to be the most popular format in use. Caveats:

  • Given the existence of the CITE element it seems that the cite rel value is redundant although it appears that it will become a part of upcoming standards.
  • Another problem with this format is that the cite and via values are not specific enough. Using this format in a more precise manner will require using non-standard rel values.

Résolution En cours

After discussion the above options were converged into the following syntax: 

  <cite id="$cite.id$" class="$relationship$"><a href="$source.url$">source title</a></cite>
  <blockquote cite="#$cite.id$">
     Quoted text
  </blockquote>

The use of the cite attribute connectes the blockquote (or quote) element with the appropriate cite. Use of this feature is optional.

Ressources Supplémentaires

  • Thread Description Language - TDL is an RDF vocabulary for describing threaded discussions, such as Usenet, weblogs, bulletin boards, and e-mail conversations.
  • Usenet discussions used the references field which includes ALL referenced posts with the one replied to last in a space separated list.
  • RFC2076 - Common Internet Message Headers section 3.6 has the following:
    • In-Reply-To - Reference to message which this message is a reply to.
    • References - In e-mail: reference to other related messages, in Usenet News reference to replied-to-articles.
    • See-Also - References to other related articles in Usenet News.
    • Obsoletes - Reference to previous message being corrected and replaced.
    • Supersedes - Commonly used in Usenet News in similar ways to the "Obsoletes" header described above. In Usenet News, however, Supersedes causes a full deletion of the replaced article in the server, while "Supersedes" and "Obsoletes" in e-mail is implemented in the client and often does not remove the old version of the text.
    • Article-Updates - Only in Usenet News, similar to "Supersedes:" but does not cause the referenced article to be physically deleted.
    • Article-Names - Reference to specially important articles for a particular Usenet Newsgroup.
  • Try Googling around "IBIS" (Issue-Based Information Systems), it's an approach to collaborative problem solving that looks very like discussion threads, see also BlueOxen Wiki, BlueOxen Mailing Lists
Retrieved from "http://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=distributed-conversation-brainstorming-fr&oldid=8046"