On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Jakob Voss <jakob.v...@gbv.de> wrote:

> The purpose of description can best be served by a format that can easily be
> displayed for human beeings. You can either use a simple string or a
> well-known format. A string can be displayed but people will put all
> different citation formats in there. Right now there are only two
> established metadata formats that aim at creating a citation:
> a) BibTeX
> b) The input format of the Citation Style Language (CSL)
This isn't entirely true.  There's RIS
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIS_%28file_format%29) and BIBO
(http://bibliontology.com/) is starting to become quite common in the
linked data sphere.

There's also BibJSON (http://www.bibkn.org/bibjson/index.html) which
I've had a browser tab open for months with the intention of actually
looking at and actually seems quite well suited for how Twitter will
store annotations.  My opinion of it all along, however, has been very
similar to yours -- why another citation format and why bind it so
closely to a particular serialization?


Reply via email to