Mike,
On 8/29/06, Michael McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you just mean the ability to mark up a relation between two citation items?
For instance, if BibTeX had a convention of things like this:
@inbook{chapterkey,
title="chapter 1",
cites="articlekey,article2key,...",
partof="bookkey"}
[... snip ...]
Would you consider that relational? That kind of thing fulfills what I
think you want, but I'd like to know if you're talking about something
else too.
Yes, I'd frankly forgotten about macros, but they achieve the same
thing I am after.
I was more referring to the standard BibTeX fields, where you end up
with stuff like:
journal="ABC Journal"
...or:
book="Book Title"
This is what I object to as a basis for hCite. It effectively means
that whenever you need to support a new kind of resource, you need to
invent a new field name to describe the same thing: a related title.
ISTR that you've also described BibTeX's model as flat because author
names in BibTeX are somewhat underspecified, but since a citation
microformat will use hCard, that's not an issue here, right?
Right. I think hCard is nice improvement on the BibTeX contributor
representation.
In terms of "modular" I am referring to the fact that there is very
little that is specific to citation metadata. Properties like title,
subject, format, etc. can be used to describe a whole range of content
beyond citations.
It therefore seems to be more sensible -- both generally, as well as
WRT to microformat practice -- to isolate the general pieces and give
them a name (like, for example, hDC), and end up with an hCite format
that mostly borrows from those more general formats (hDC, hCard, and
maybe hCal).
But this is less of a concern for me. It wouldn't be the end of the
world for others to borrow from hCite.
Bruce
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
