--- Scott Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:15 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > > > Explicitly stating what an item is a much sounder approach. > > I agree. What if I want to cite a photograph and all I know about it > > is the photographer's name and the title of the photograph?
You cite the photographer's name and title of the photograph. <cite><span class="photographer">Ansel Adams</span>, <span class="title">Siesta Lake</span></cite> I understand the desire to capture "type" metadata - I wanted to include it for the longest time. But - from a microformats point of view - we have to keep two things in mind: 1) Humans first, machines second. This means keeping everything visible, not trapped in metadata. If you really want to note that it's a photo then include that: <cite>Photo <span class="title">Siesta Lake</span> by <span class="fn photography">Ansel Adams</span>.</cite> 2) "Adapted to current behaviors and usage patterns." Microformats are suppose to be modeled on what people are currently doing (80/20) on the web. I think of it in terms of the Everyman/woman. Capturing metadata isn't what is happening by the 80. Look at the examples collected on the wiki, very little metadata if any. (http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-examples -- look to the Implied Schema section) I think things like marc records, OpenURL, Bibtex, etc. are actually *too* specific for MF. If the library community needs something to replace the existing standards, it'd be great if it was based off of a microformat, but it shouldn't be the MF. ~ Tim <a href="http://www.tjameswhite.com";>www.tjameswhite.com</a> <a href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12227&t=1";>Get Firefox!</a> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
