Call for scope check (was Re: Citation: next steps?)

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:

<record>
   <contributors>
     <authors>
       <author>Vicente, Kim J.</author>
       <author>Rasmussen, Jens</author>
     </authors>
   </contributors>
   ...
</record>

BibDesk[1] also exports the following:

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

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
obscurity.

[1]: http://bibdesk.source
forge.net/

-- 
Ryan Cannon

Interactive Developer
MSI Student, School of Information
University of Michigan
http://RyanCannon.com



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

> On 9/22/06, Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus.listsgmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/22/06, Michael McCracken
<michael.mccrackengmail.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.ucs
d.edu/~mmccrack/
> misc: http://michael-mccra
cken.net/wp/
>

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 9/22/06 4:48 PM, "Ryan Cannon" <ryanryancannon.com> wrote:

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

We are.  There is much debate about which format to re-use
existing property
names etc. from.


> 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?

That's what the citation-formats page is for.  Pre-existing
formats such as
BibTex and EndNote.

 http://
microformats.org/wiki/citation-formats

Thanks,

Tantek


_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 9/22/06, Ryan Cannon <ryanryancannon.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.

-mike

**- 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.mccrackengmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/22/06, Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus.listsgmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/22/06, Michael McCracken
<michael.mccrackengmail.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.ucs
d.edu/~mmccrack/
> > misc: http://michael-mccra
cken.net/wp/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discussmicroformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
>


-- 
Michael McCracken
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
research: http://www.cse.ucs
d.edu/~mmccrack/
misc: http://michael-mccra
cken.net/wp/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss